On 25 January 2012 12:18, Dave Martin <dave.mar...@linaro.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Zach Pfeffer <zach.pfef...@linaro.org> wrote: > > [...] > >> >> >> For Android we have: >> >> https://android-build.linaro.org/builds/~linaro-android/panda-12.01-release/ >> >> we should have the same thing for Ubuntu: >> >> ubuntu-build.linaro.org >> >> with the similar information. >> > > I'm not sure about that: for Debian/Ubuntu there are established > methods for getting source and provenance info. It's a solved > problem, so we should just use the mature solution instead of > insisting on inventing our own. > > A key issue is that there is a fundamental difference between the way > building and versioning works between the Debian and Android worlds. > > In Android, if I understand correctly, the whole build is effectively > done from a single tree, so you can meaningfully tag a whole release > and bungle source for it without tagging individual components. Am I > correct here? > > In the Debian way of doing things, builds are incremental and > continuous there is no single tree containing all the source for a > release. Bootstrapping a whole release from pure source is a rare > event, and involves a significant manual effort. Rather, a release is > a particular set of versions of particular packages, not built as part > of the release process, but instead the set of newest pre-built > versions of the chosen packages at the time the release was defined. > Also, once you have the platform running you can upgrade it piecemeal, > package by package. So establishing metadata at the release level > only is hard and makes little sense: the metadata must be tracked at > the package level in any case. > > > All this means that the way we track a source project (such as the > Linux kernel) which is common between both worlds must accommodate > both worlds. If it fails to accommodate either, we will encounter > trouble in one world or the other. > > > For the kernels, we do almost get things right for Ubuntu-land, but > just not right _enough_ that finding the source works reliably in the > same way as for every other package. > > A UI is a good thing if it is built on firm foundations, but I fear > that if we don't get the fundamentals correct, no amount of UI > polishing is going to hide the instability that lurks beneath.
That's all well and good, but the point is you need to answer the following question: What kernel was used. Where can I get it. How can I rebuild it. You may as well put that on a 'page' so that people who are not Debian people can easily find what they're looking for. The point of the android-build pages is that it answers specific questions: How do I use this? How do I rebuild this? Where does this come from? What works? Where can I get help? Take a look at: https://android-build.linaro.org/builds/~linaro-android/landing-panda-12.01-release/ Everything's in one place. Its not the way Android does this, but that doesn't matter, it giving our customers exactly what they want. That's why an ubuntu-build.linaro.org is so important. Right now its hard to find Ubuntu stuff which is bad. As a Linaro user I should be able to find everything I need on one page without digging through out of date wikis or knowing someone. > > Cheers > ---Dave -- Zach Pfeffer Android Platform Team Lead, Linaro Platform Teams Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
