Re: wanna-build deployment for derivatives?
+++ Tim Retout [2012-02-15 21:19 +0000]:
> On 15 February 2012 16:30, Wookey <wookey@wookware.org> wrote:
> > a related approach
> > here is the sbuild-db branch code in sbuild which is well on the way
> > to providing a much saner/more portable wanna-build implementation. My
> > (admittedly not very well-informed) feeling is that work on this/docs
> > for this will be more fruitful in the medium term in enabling
> > easily-reproducible/configurable buildd setups.
>
> Mmm. We've paused our work on wanna-build to consider some
> alternatives; I was hoping to reuse some of the web interfaces that
> show wanna-build status.
Me too. Almost imediately after maing your buildd work you want a nice
web-interface onto that status. You say 'some of'. I am only aware of
one: 'pgstatus' from http://git.debian-ports.org/?p=pgstatus.git;a=summary
Are there others?
That code is nice, but somewhat debian-specific in places, and more
significantly, closely tied to the wanna-build database format.
I've looked briefly at changing it to talk to rebuidd and/or
reprepro's databases instead but this seems non-trivial (at least for
me). I currently plan to make rebuildd record the sbuild status return
somehow, and have some simple awk/shell-age to make HTML summaries.
This is 90% expedience rather than any sort of useful general solution.
rebuildd provides some basic web output, which mostly just shows that
it is working, rather than being very useful from my POV. That could
be expanded, but it's probably better to try and keep the buildd
status web reporting separate from the buildd controller, not least
because they are likely to be different machines. Which leads back to
making pgstatus more versatile and able to talk to sbuild-db and
rebuildd backends as well as wanna-build. But this is a little tricky
because they provide different info.
I suspect a good way to make these components compatible is to
implement a web-API using some of those buzzwords (RESTful, AJAX). I
am largely clueless about this stuff, but it seems a sensible way to
decouple the components so the info can easily be re-used as required.
I realise this is all a bit vague but that's as far as I've got so
far. Does anyone disgree violently?
I'm back at work after 2 weeks' conferencing so hope to make some
prgress on this stuff soon. Tim, we should clearly keep in touch as we
appear tohave almost exactly the same goals.
Wookey
--
Principal hats: Linaro, Emdebian, Wookware, Balloonboard, ARM
http://wookware.org/
Reply to: