[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.
-- 
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