Re: mozilla.d.n
* Mike Hommey (mh@glandium.org) [110430 17:57]:
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 02:18:06PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Mike Hommey (mh@glandium.org) [110430 13:28]:
> > > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 01:06:57PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > > * Mike Hommey (mh@glandium.org) [110430 12:16]:
> > > > > That being said, it would be really helpful to be able to get buildds
> > > > > to build the mozilla.d.n packages...
> > > >
> > > > Would it work to build the packages in unstable? If so, why not
> > > > uploading them to experimental and re-branding them in mozilla.d.n?
> > >
> > > I'm not sure to understand what you are suggesting.
> >
> >
> > The question is how could we get the packages built so that we don't
> > need to setup yet another buildd suite (or more general, I want to
> > avoid setting one suite per package). Of course, ppa would come to
> > rescue here, and it's really only a question of "someone would need to
> > write the code".
> >
> > I would propose the following for now:
> >
> > 1. For unstable users, upload the packages to experimental, and
> > extract them from there once they are built.
> > 2. For testing users, do the same (but only take the packages if they
> > have dependencies fullfilable in testing)
> > 3. For stable and oldstalbe users, upload the packages to bpo, and
> > extract them from there.
> >
> > All that can (and should) be scripted of course.
>
> Ah, so that's an hypothetical case, involving minimal changes to the
> current buildd system. But it currently isn't possible.
Why not? Or - what is the blocker? (If there is some easily removable,
I'm happy to remove it.)
Andi
Reply to: