Adriaan de Groot wrote: > On Tuesday 14 April 2009 18:01:47 Jan Hnatek wrote: >> Adriaan de Groot wrote: >>> On Monday 13 April 2009 20:25:16 Lukas Oboril wrote: >>> Perhaps we should once again define (stringently?) the build environment >>> for these packages. For instance saying "CBE 1.7.0" and checking for that >>> in both check-version.sh and adding it as build requires to the specs. >> I'm very much up for this wrt the -42 repo. > > OK. Concrete suggestions? Can pkgtool handle package version requirements? We > might want to state something like: > > BuildRequires: CBEenv > 1.6.9 > > I think the rpm pkgtool can do that. That would reduce the amount of willy- > nillyness around the build process; we wouldn't have to specify any other > build dependencies. Headers and stuff like that, though, remain a problem > (unless CBE implies SUNWhea and similar).
This is more a question for Laca, I'm only still getting familiar with these tools. > >> Tbh, I'm working on an automated build system for VirtualBox to set up >> nightly builds. Currently it's OpenSolaris 111, CBE 1.7.0, pkgbuild >> 1.3.98, cmake+yasm from -42 (hm, this number... :) >> It should be ready in a few days. > > Ooh, cool. Thinking of this, I actually started this to mimic sourcejuicer env. to test my spec for fntsample. Maybe other projects will benefit too... > >> Can I commit these tools to the repo, say ./specs/tools/vbox/? > > As far as I'm concerned, yes. Good, you'll notice when it gets there. :) > >> Does anyone have a public ftp where I could publish the logs? >> /I'll be asking around internally, so maybe I'll find another way/ > > You could scp them onto solaris.bionicmutton.org, for instance. I have no > real > opinion on how to display them, though. I was thinking - a grep of PASSED/FAILED packages to email, logs browsable via http... hnhn -- Jan Hnatek jan.hnatek at sun.com
