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

Do we want extras/testing/{4,5} repos (was Re: Packaging review guidelines clarification)



Am Samstag, den 18.02.2006, 12:54 -0500 schrieb Dan Williams:
> On Sat, 2006-02-18 at 09:59 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 18:12 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>[...]
> > Ok, I did some digging in the plague code this morning.  It seems that
> > plague 0.4 already has support built into it for a testing/scratch repo.
> > Namely, if the target is said repo, it changes the status of the build
> > job to done after building and skips the addtorepo step. (Unless I read
> > some code wrong).
> 
> (note that I renamed "scratch" to "testing" to reduce confusion.  If
> "scratch" is still in the 0.5 code I should fix that.)
>
> No, you read the code correctly.  However, there's a big gaping hole for
> scratch/testing builds; dependencies.  Since the packages don't get
> added to the distro repository or the buildsystem repository, you can't
> build a testing package B that depends on a testing package A.  You can
> only build single packages into a testing repo.  Oversight on my part
> perhaps.  We figured this out right before we were going to enable
> testing targets last year. [...]

Site note: If this code soon works for real should we consider to put
the public extras/testing/ repo "back to life" (or let's say: start
using this old idea again)? 

We could use it with a scheme like "All new or updated packages should
hang out some days in extras/testing/ before they get pushed over to the
official trees automatically; only important updates that for fix
security problems go directly to the official tree". 

Opinions? 

CU
thl
-- 
Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora leemhuis info>


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