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

Re: www-master: Latest SVN or packaged version? (was: SVN finally fully enabled ...)


On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 09:58:17AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 11:27:55AM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > Until someone stands up to set up such system, we should allow makefile
> > to fetch and extract unstable package to create html.  If we use some
> > conditional in package's make file, it should not be too difficult to do
> > so.  It is each subtree owner's decision and you can do it now.
> That would possibly be fine only under the condition that it fetches the
> package and copies the files into its own directory (in place of files which
> would normally get built), leaving the publish rule intact. 

That is what I meant.

> But even that is
> wasteful because it has to make e.g. a mirror selection, which evades the
> existing www-master scripts that do the same more consistently.

Hmmm... any pointer?  I was going to pick one mirror and curl/wget/dget
deb package(s).

> Also, we definitely don't want novel makefile rules to be directly publishing
> stuff on the web site, because all sorts of strange things can happen with
> that. The existing 'publish' rules are risky enough.

Which publish rule are you talking.  
 No I do not want to touch main Makefile.

 Project makefile: what is the difference in risk to make html files
 directly from source or copy contents from package to its publishing
 area.  I mean  that we run "dpkg-deb -x package.deb
 /var/tmp/something/" and copy html to install directory.  Then emove

> Anyway, I think we've spent a lot of time musing about this alternative
> solution, which may give people the wrong impression. The cleanest solution

??? clean ????  or you mean ***practical***.  tex-live backport is
non-trivial though.  I agree it is practical for most cases.  I should
do one backport, I know.

> is to have the necessary tool-chain packages backported - it's a useful
> thing for everyone, and we are after all a community of packagers - it's
> not that hard for us to make backports :)

Joy, you know we (or I) make things in hard way.  Now I am having fun
making pbuilder to support unstable and backport with a simple command
line option (Bug #398404).   Then I had to lern git and its mail
interface to contribute to the upstream.  I have not made back port


Reply to: