headers
alan buckley | 20 Dec 2007 10:32
Picon
Favicon

Re: Duplicates between repositores


> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:01:41 Matthew wrote:

> The GCC guys have created RiscPkg output from their autobuilder.

I was going to email this list this morning about this. Thanks you've
saved me a job;-)

> This is a good thing as it prevents the annoying duplication of
> source which happens with my own CppUnit package.

I'm afraid it won't prevent the duplication of source. see my
comments below.

As an aside is it OK for your CppUnit package to appear on the
autobuilder site as well?

>
> However, it now means we have to repositories which share packages.
> For instance, DRender is in both as is UnixHome and a few others.

Is UnixHome in both> I didn't think it was which is why I added it to
the autobuilder package site.
DRenderer was added because it is only included in the external Netsurf
site and not on the main package list.

My intention is that once I've had a chance to get some feedback
from the autobuilder site I will see if I can move the DRenderer and
UnixHome packages to the main RiscPkg website.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Adam | 20 Dec 2007 21:16
Picon

Re: Duplicates between repositores

In message <BAY101-W3744163AC3F46FE3A42D89F05D0@...>, alan buckley
wrote:
> 
> Due to lack of time, people to test, etc. I suspect that the
> autobuilder web site will contain a lot of packages that never make it
> onto the riscpkg repositry.

Why not just start them off in the RiscPkg "Unstable" distribution? If
they're later deemed stable they can move to the (forthcoming) stable
distribution.

> 
> Ideally, people would try out the packages on the autobuilder web site
> and let me (or in the future the GCC list) know what works well and
> then the package would be added to the main riscpkg repositry. This
> way people who don't want to take chances that a program may not work
> could just subscribe to the riscpkg repositry.
> 
> Before I can do that though I need to know how I can get the source
> code as well as the binary on to the riscpkg site. Once I can see how
> that is possible, I will also need to check that the GCC developers
> are happy for me to put stable versions on another site.
> 
> As far as I can tell, if the licence of the program needs you to
> distribute the source code, then you need it downloadable from the
> same sites as the binaries are downloadable from.

That's not my (inexpert) understanding. As far as I can tell the /real/
requirement is that people can get the source by post - putting it up on
websites is just a means to avoid having to post CDs to people!
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
alan buckley | 21 Dec 2007 17:11
Picon
Favicon

Re: Duplicates between repositores


> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 20:16:26 Adam wrote:
>
> In message , alan buckley
> wrote:
>>
>> Due to lack of time, people to test, etc. I suspect that the
>> autobuilder web site will contain a lot of packages that never make it
>> onto the riscpkg repositry.
>
> Why not just start them off in the RiscPkg "Unstable" distribution? If
> they're later deemed stable they can move to the (forthcoming) stable
> distribution.

The autobuilder site is automatically created from the packages automatically
built using the autobuilder. It's purpose is to give access to these automatic
builds. Adding a package to the RiscPkg "Unstable" distribution is a manual
task.

The autobuilder site (hopefully) clearly states the programs may stop running,
whereas in my opinion even the Unstable distribution of the RiscPkg site should
contain programs that will run somewhere.

(In my experience if an upgrade to a program builds in the autobuilder it will
continue to run, but I have seen exceptions).

>
[snip]
>>
>> As far as I can tell, if the licence of the program needs you to
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Matthew Hambley | 20 Dec 2007 11:47
Picon
Picon

Re: Duplicates between repositores


On Thu, 20 December, 2007 9:32 am, alan buckley wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:01:41 Matthew wrote:
[snip]
>> This is a good thing as it prevents the annoying duplication of
>> source which happens with my own CppUnit package.
>
> I'm afraid it won't prevent the duplication of source. see my
> comments below.

Pooh!

> As an aside is it OK for your CppUnit package to appear on the
> autobuilder site as well?

If you think that would be useful you are welcome to go for it. I'll go
further than that, it would be useful, go for it.

>> However, it now means we have to repositories which share packages.
>> For instance, DRender is in both as is UnixHome and a few others.
>
> Is UnixHome in both I didn't think it was which is why I added it to the
> autobuilder package site. DRenderer was added because it is only included
> in the external Netsurf site and not on the main package list.

These packages may be coming from the Netsurf site but either way they
problem still stands. We have multiple repositories holding the same
package, possibly at different versions. How will RiscPkg handle this?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Jess Hampshire | 20 Dec 2007 12:32

Re: Duplicates between repositores

In message <1620.129.215.63.79.1198147678.squirrel@...>
          "Matthew Hambley" <lists@...> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 December, 2007 9:32 am, alan buckley wrote:

>> The www.riscpkg.org repositry is the main packaging repositry. In
>> my opinion everything should end up there.

> As a matter of policy that's fine. Technically I don't see the problem
> with having many repositories. I know Debian prefers the monolithic
> approach but I wonder if there's anything to be said for a more
> distributed one.

I think that it doesn't matter if there is more than one repository, 
it may be less work if autobuilder packages live elsewhere.

However, I think it is important that there are separate release and 
testing repositories.

Riscpkg should have only the release repositories by default, and the 
testing repositories would need to be added manually. (As is the 
current situation.)

I would also like to see the display coloured differently for packages 
on different repositories.

eg white for official release repositories.
gray for official testing repositories (eg autobuilder)
yellow for unknown ones.

--

--
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
alan buckley | 20 Dec 2007 12:33
Picon
Favicon

Re: Duplicates between repositores


> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:47 Matthew wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 December, 2007 9:32 am, alan buckley wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:01:41 Matthew wrote:
[snip]
>
>> As an aside is it OK for your CppUnit package to appear on the
>> autobuilder site as well?
>
> If you think that would be useful you are welcome to go for it. I'll go
> further than that, it would be useful, go for it.

Thanks. Actually all I should need to do is build it and then update the
website for it to appear. (I was hoping you wouldn't mind as I haven't
anyway of stopping it from happening if I built CppUnit at the moment).

I'm leaving the site alone over Christmas, but I'll probably try CppUnit
in January.

>
>>> However, it now means we have to repositories which share packages.
>>> For instance, DRender is in both as is UnixHome and a few others.
>>
>> Is UnixHome in both I didn't think it was which is why I added it to the
>> autobuilder package site. DRenderer was added because it is only included
>> in the external Netsurf site and not on the main package list.
>
> These packages may be coming from the Netsurf site but either way they
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Matthew Hambley | 21 Dec 2007 16:58
Picon
Picon

Re: Duplicates between repositores

alan buckley wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:47 Matthew wrote:
[snip]
>> Certainly UnixHome is available to me through RiscPkg and I have
>> not added the auto builder yet in case it caused problems.
> 
> Can you find out where your version of UnixHome came from? I was not 
> aware of it and would like to see if it is better than the one I'm
> using.

Actually it turns out that is complete poppycock. I have no idea why I
thought that but it isn't true.

[snip]
>> Currently we seem to be using the RiscPkg subversion repository.
>> I'm beginning to think that source packages are a better approach.
>> I know they were intentionally left out of RiscPkg but I can't
>> remember why. Maybe it's time to reconsider that choice?
> 
> I think we probably need Graham's input here.

Agreed

--

-- 
(\/)atthew
Permalink | Reply |

Gmane