On Thursday, November 27, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote: > On Thu, 2014-11-27 at 20:22 +0800, JF Ding wrote: > > There’s no doubt that GBS support will be supported actively. GBS > > building is just the local side solution of OBS, > > > > > It's not quite that simple. gbs has certain expectations about the git > tree (source unpacked in branch, for example) which OBS doesn't have. So > supporting gbs in addition to OBS is causing at least some extra work. > >
Actually, in OBS side, the source exporting work is also done by gbs-export module, that means the expectation of the git tree branches are almost the same. But I am not against the idea we can simplify the model for new packages imported from Yocto in the future. Supporting gbs(precisely: gbs localfullbuidl) or not, I have no strong opinion personally, and expect to listen more feedbacks from current users. > > I'm with Carsten here, I would have dropped gbs support for packages > coming from Yocto to keep the overall system simpler. OBS could still be > supported by exporting .spec + source archive directly into it for these > packages. > > But when we discussed this, the conclusion was that this would be too > much of a change for Tizen and thus gbs support is still part of the > plans. See Dominig's email about the new workflow for details. > > -- > Best Regards, Patrick Ohly > > The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although > I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way > represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak > on behalf of Intel on this matter. > >
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list Dev@lists.tizen.org https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
