Re: scratch buildds
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 11:28:47PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Adam Borowski wrote:
>
> > Thus, what would you guys say about a new distribution, "scratch"? It would
> > be a kind of extra-experimental that doesn't put its build results anywhere
> > persistent. Throwing away built .debs would be ok, keeping just logs.
>
> Perhaps I'm missing something but would introducing more architectures
> to the salsa.debian.org continuous integrations runners not serve
> mostly the same purpose?
Yeah, with the "more architectures" being the key point.
I haven't used salsa CI, but eg. Reproducible Builds have four archs:
amd64, arm64, armhf, i386. I have machines that can run these without
software emulation literally at hand's reach -- from each of three places
I typically code at.
That's not the case for any other arch, including a bunch of release ones.
And I have only a sharply limited amount of damn to give for eg. mipsel.
It's somehow still a release arch, thus as a DD I'm still supposed to at
least try to port to it, but there's only so many tuits I, and other
maintainers, have -- and for this reason I'd prefer porting to be
convenient.
> The developer's workflow would simply be to
> push a commit and it would be built and tested automatically.
Not every commit is worth testing, especially on bigger packages. I don't
want to cause unnecessary drain on already limited resources (crap
architectures have slow buildds).
> (I would concede that this would essentially require adopting a salsa
> and Git-based packaging scheme, however.)
Or to develop elsewhere, and push to Salsa just to trigger CI.
Meow!
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Don't be racist. White, amber or black, all beers should
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ be judged based solely on their merits. Heck, even if
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ occasionally a cider applies for a beer's job, why not?
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ On the other hand, corpo lager is not a race.
Reply to: