Hi, I started writing my proposal for this project, but the MPAB system status and required work are not yet very clear for me.
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Joshua Root <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2013-4-14 19:33 , Clemens Lang wrote: >>> - I didn't find much information about the current status of the >>> binary building system, could someone elaborate on that? Specifically, >>> which other tasks does this project expect besides those mentioned in >>> the wiki? >> >> I'm not very familiar with the binary build system. Maybe somebody else >> on this list has some insight into this? > > I guess that's my cue. Ask away and I'll do my best to answer any > questions you have. > > As for what you could do with binaries, there are a few enhancements > that could be made to the current MPAB system, but I don't know if they > would constitute a reasonably big project for GSoC. The chroot thing > mentioned on the wiki is (a) really hard given the way modern OS X > works, and (b) a lot less relevant with sandboxing in the picture. > Current trunk sandboxes a lot of stuff, but more can be done. > What do you mean by "more can be done"? These improvements would accomplish what, exactly? > There have been some other directions for binaries talked about on the > lists. One is to make essentially a parallel binary-only distribution, > built from the portfiles, that uses something like pkgng or rpm for > delivery. > > Another idea, enabled by automatic builds, is to maintain a list of > ports known to build and pass their test phase (if any) on each > platform, and allow users to choose to only see those in the list for > their platform. If what we have at the moment is analogous to Debian > unstable, this would be like Debian testing. This could easily be > extended to only make visible ports for which a binary archive is available. Are there ports which are unstable or can't be built by MPAB for some reason? Also, can I post my proposal draft now to get some feedback? I still need to know if it contains a reasonable amount of work for a GSoC. Thanks, Marcelo On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Joshua Root <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2013-4-14 19:33 , Clemens Lang wrote: >>> - I didn't find much information about the current status of the >>> binary building system, could someone elaborate on that? Specifically, >>> which other tasks does this project expect besides those mentioned in >>> the wiki? >> >> I'm not very familiar with the binary build system. Maybe somebody else >> on this list has some insight into this? > > I guess that's my cue. Ask away and I'll do my best to answer any > questions you have. > > As for what you could do with binaries, there are a few enhancements > that could be made to the current MPAB system, but I don't know if they > would constitute a reasonably big project for GSoC. The chroot thing > mentioned on the wiki is (a) really hard given the way modern OS X > works, and (b) a lot less relevant with sandboxing in the picture. > Current trunk sandboxes a lot of stuff, but more can be done. > > There have been some other directions for binaries talked about on the > lists. One is to make essentially a parallel binary-only distribution, > built from the portfiles, that uses something like pkgng or rpm for > delivery. > > Another idea, enabled by automatic builds, is to maintain a list of > ports known to build and pass their test phase (if any) on each > platform, and allow users to choose to only see those in the list for > their platform. If what we have at the moment is analogous to Debian > unstable, this would be like Debian testing. This could easily be > extended to only make visible ports for which a binary archive is available. > > - Josh _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
