Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 12:49:05AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: >> I was wondering what percentage of the repository is sufficiently >> g-b-s-tastic or cygport-ified to be able to more-or-less automatedly >> rebuild. > > What does "automatically rebuilt" mean? Are you saying that one person > would rebuild everything?
No, a _script_ would rebuild everything, or as much of it can be rebuilt by grepping a list of source tarballs out of setup.ini and programatically downloading and unpacking them followed by running either "cygport <.cygport name> all" or "<g-b-s-variant name>.sh all". (Modulo whatever minor adjustments e.g. build 'almostall' rather than 'all' so that we can run the check target as well). I can't imagine a package maintainer being > comfortable with that. I know I wouldn't be. Well, it's your right to object. I just noticed that one of the links that came up during the previous do-we-don't-we-flag-day thread was to an article describing how one of the big distros handled a similar flag day, and it sounded very much to me like they were running an auto-build server for the whole distro that maintainers just uploaded source package files to. A bit like the cygwin-ports repository. Ah, here it is: "Debian library renaming due to changed libstdc++ configuration" http://lwn.net/Articles/160330/ and that leads me to this article about the Debian "Autobuilder Network": http://www.debian.org/devel/buildd/ Would you be any more comfortable if the suggestion was that we only autorebuilt packages for which the maintainers were seriously AWOL? > And, I can't imagine anyone volunteering to rebuild scores of packages. No; if we decide to try this, it's a machine's work, not a human's! cheers, DaveK