On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:37:10PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote: > 2008/6/24 Moinak Ghosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 8:35 AM, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> That's mainly what I'm getting at; just put a much better way. > >> > >> It's perfectly fine, in my view, to require that the materials > >> necessary to rebuild the package be provided (even if those materials > >> are primarly binaries in some cases). > >> > >> There's no reason to require duplicated efforts to have packages in a > >> repository. > > > > Ok. A suggestion. > > For the longer run I think it is pertinent to evolve > > tooling/infrastructure > > for automated builds of package submissions possibly using the Test > > Farm resources. Essentially the submission of a package triggers the > > scheduling of a future build of the source recipe to verify correctness > > with > > a mechanism to get the results back to the contributor. Human intervention > > should not be necessary. > > Yes, an automated build facility would be great. I just wouldn't want > to see us setup a contrib repository where the only way to get things > into it was through the intervention of a build team member.
The SFE repository is working very well, so I'd assume that does not need to be fixed. Which leaves the just one major missing piece -- the pkgbuild-pkg one. > Users > should just be able to contribute a package and necessary materials > and have it "show up" (perhaps after a quick manual approval by > someone). Almost the same as what I'm saying. The only extra step is where an automated build is triggered after the approval. That is the only real overhead, and has the major advantage that the approval has a much higher probability of assuring quality and security than just inspecting binaries. The alternative, IMO, is the slightly more heavyweight trusted maintainer model. Venky. _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
