2008/6/24 Venky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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.
It is working well, yes. But one solution does "not fit all." >> 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. I believe a mixed model is more appropriate. In short, I'm just going to have to disagree with you on requiring things to be buildable to be contributable. -- Shawn Walker _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
