Le 01/05/2011 17:16, Andreas Barth a écrit :
>> I don't understand why this is only point 5. Setting up a custom
>> repository easily usable is quite easy... and done already
>> (mozilla.debian.net has been mentioned; I also happen to provide
>> unofficial packages on ocaml.debian.net).
> It's easy for one piece of software. I maintained more than one dak
> instance already.
> However, to get that done right for multiple software is not so easy.
What do you mean by "right"? Have you ever used Lauchpad's PPAs? Does it
qualify as "right"?
PPAs are not perfect... but they are practical and useful enough for
developers and users.
> Well yes, but how many autobuilding suites should we add? 50? 100?
> 200? How do we do key management so that we know that the autobuilder
> build the packages that they should?
Why would we need more suites?
I was thinking of a request that would include a base suite (e.g.
squeeze, wheezy, or sid), files to drop in /etc/apt/sources.list.d (and
/etc/apt/preferences.d), and the key used to sign unofficial
repositories. Of course, the request itself would be signed (like
*.changes or *.commands files on ftp-master). Then a buildd accepting a
job would add the key with apt-key, drop the files in /etc/apt, upgrade
and launch the build as usual... the whole thing done in a throw-away
chroot, obviously (I use cowbuilder myself for that, but I heard that
sbuild had support for LVM snapshots).
- Re: PPA
- From: Andreas Barth <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Re: PPA
- From: Roger Leigh <email@example.com>