[gccsdk] FW: Autobuilder packaging progress

John Tytgat John.Tytgat at aaug.net
Tue Jan 15 12:50:03 PST 2008

In message <478CEE99.2010209 at chocky.org>
          Peter Naulls <peter at chocky.org> wrote:

> I don't recall exactly what John said, but firstly, let's not fragment
> and spread ourselves too thinly.  We don't have hundreds or thousands of
> developers like Debian to look after different variations of packages
> not any particular reason to do so.   Nor should we provide user
> confusion by naming things "unstable", with the ensuing explanations
> that'll be required.  All we'll do in the end is ensure that such
> named software won't get tested.

I agree that the word "unstable" is not reflecting what we mean with it.

> The best anyone can ask or we can provide is a single distribution on
> a best effort basis.  There might be older versions of software in
> that distribution, but that's ok too.

I'm feeling confident enough about the ELF static based builds but the
moment we're building with shared libs I think we better get those
application and libraries in a separate "testing" category until we feel
we don't have any major issues left.

I would go for "stable" & "testing" category like we also have with the
GCCSDK releases vs pre-releases.

> As for manual intervention, let's avoid that too, it'll just mean
> more manual effort later.  If we can come up with more generic
> ways of doing things, even if the initial result takes longer,
> that'll be better for everyone.

I don't mind seeing a bit of extra effort done upfront if this is going
to pay off multiple times back later.  I like the SCP idea and the package
website build happening on riscos.info.

John Tytgat, in his comfy chair at home                                 BASS
John.Tytgat at aaug.net                             ARM powered, RISC OS driven

More information about the gcc mailing list