Re: Why not to let all DDs to execute "gb"-command
2013/6/7 Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no>:
> ]] Nicolas Dandrimont
>
>> The "accepted by DSA part" is a bit complicated. We didn't really want to
>> bother one of the busiest teams in Debian when the software wasn't even
>> packaged, and, when it came up, I felt that the reception of the idea of
>> using fedmsg was a bit lukewarm. I think we should be able to work things out
>> when and if we have a working proof of concept.
>
> >From what I remember, we did have some questions about how some unique
> challenges in Debian's infrastructure will be solved, yes. I don't
> think I've seen completely satisfactory answers about it yet either, but
> I'd need to go digging to be entirely sure.
At the Tanglu Debian derivative (which is just in formation right now)
we build packages using Jenkins CI at the moment, due to this issue
and wanna-build having problems to build source-only packages and a
few other issues (difficult to set-up, weird handling of buildlogs and
some other related issues)
Jenkins isn't perfect either, so I am currently aiming to adjust
buildbot for our needs, which might be a solution (and it easier to
handle than a wb infrastructure, and can be integrated with the
existing Python tools).
Using Debian infrastructure outside of Debian is really difficult
sometimes, because it grew with Debian and many parts of it are
designed with a different image of Debian in mind, when it was much
smaller. But there is great work going on in maintaining and improving
infrastructure :-) (after digging into it, appreciate the work all the
teams do even more!)
In terms of infrastructure, IMHO Ubuntu did really well with the idea
of Launchpad as integrated solution. I also like the messaging idea
for Debian, but it might need some plan which parts of the
infrastructure it will cover and how implementation could happen
without too much extra work for the DSA.
Wasn't there a GSoC project about it, or did I misread that?
Cheers,
Matthias
--
I welcome VSRE emails. See http://vsre.info/
Reply to: