[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]


* Roger Leigh (rleigh@codelibre.net) [110501 18:46]:
> On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 06:34:02PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Raphael Hertzog (hertzog@debian.org) [110501 18:23]:
> > > On Sun, 01 May 2011, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > How can we submit jobs to a buildd?
> > > - APT entry to add (i.e. URL of the PPA so that the buildd can fetch
> > >   build-dependencies not satisfiable in the target suite)
> > 
> > Why not just use one location - shouldn't be an issue unless you plan
> > to have the same packages and version numbers in multiple PPAs. And
> > that's something I recommend not to do.
> With the newer 'apt' and 'aptitude' resolvers, where we are creating
> a local apt archive, we already have the code to add additional
> apt entries into /etc/apt/sources.list.d and update apt.  If we need
> to add additional sources, and the existing buildd mechanism
> (99builddsourceslist) is insufficiently flexible, then we can always
> add them by allowing them to be specified on the command-line.  This
> mechanism might be a somewhat simpler and more flexible alternative to
> 99builddsourceslist for the general case as well.

It's quite easy to add them, agreed. That could even be done with the
old sbuild version.

However, somehow the keys needs to be feed into a safe way.

Anyways, if someone could come up with the relevant code which works
(and has been shown to work for some time - just do that as an example
on amd64 or i386), that would be good to have it integrated. As said,
wanna-build is available via git, new options can be transfered in the
api=1-yaml-format (search for extra-changelog: in the code). If that
works stable and reliable, that would be great and one large item from
my whishlist done. (And as always: Above all, no harm. It shouldn't
disrupt existing buildds, chroots, whatever - I can remember well the
most recent upgrade of our buildds.)


Reply to: