Re: [RFC] Script to build installer from SVN
Frans Pop writes: > On Monday 16 February 2009, Christian Perrier wrote: >> What's not addressed by this is the case of a language being activated >> with its translations suddenly flowing down to dozens of packages >> (case for Kazakh last week). > > It looks like you skipped over one para in my mail: > ! The *only* valid reason I can see to do a build from SVN is when a new > ! language has been activated and the relevant translator wants to see how > ! it looks. But in that case such a build can much better be done on an > ! ad-hoc basis. > > And the existing buildpackage script already can do this for you! > Especially with the change Colin committed today. Yes, with the change Colin has commited today my script gives too few benefit against buildscript so I'll probably just drop it. I'll later see if some ideas I've done in my script could be used on buildscript to make it easier to be keep up to date; besides that I think we should keep on it. -- O T A V I OS A L V A D O R - E-mail: ota...@debian.org UIN: 5906116 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br - "Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives you the whole house." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [RFC] Script to build installer from SVN
On Monday 16 February 2009, Christian Perrier wrote: > What's not addressed by this is the case of a language being activated > with its translations suddenly flowing down to dozens of packages > (case for Kazakh last week). It looks like you skipped over one para in my mail: ! The *only* valid reason I can see to do a build from SVN is when a new ! language has been activated and the relevant translator wants to see how ! it looks. But in that case such a build can much better be done on an ! ad-hoc basis. And the existing buildpackage script already can do this for you! Especially with the change Colin committed today. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [RFC] Script to build installer from SVN
Quoting Frans Pop (elen...@planet.nl): > [2] Of course I DO NOT mean an upload every time the French translation > team adds a cedille below a "c" (i.e: c -> ç), but if there are a > significant number of translation updates pending for a package, that's a > valid reason to do an upload. What's not addressed by this is the case of a language being activated with its translations suddenly flowing down to dozens of packages (case for Kazakh last week). I think it would be a good immediate feedback to these translators to be able to say them that a special image allows them testing their work. I understand the concerns about the likely brokeness of this image and it should certainly be made *very* proeminent that any bug found in it should also be compared to the same situation with the regular daily buildsbut, still, I think it fit an hole somewhere. -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [RFC] Script to build installer from SVN
On Monday 16 February 2009, Otavio Salvador wrote: > The way buildscript does is completely different the way I was thinking > about doing it. The script calls cowbuilder to make all required stuff > in a chroot not messing with the machine where we're building it. That is probably of some benefit. If you want to make the effort, *shrug*. I'm still not convinced that we really need (or want to maintain!) two scripts that essentially do the same thing, and IMO anybody doing these builds should already have their build machine set up to build udebs anyway. It's not like we have any huge or really weird demands, only a bunch of fairly simple build-deps. > I don't intend it to be run at really regular basis but mostly when > we're preparing the release and we have it mostly "stable"; another > good reason to have it is to make easier to Christian to build images > and test languages. On that basis, i.e. if it is only going to be used for informal, ad-hoc builds that we never "publish" or do general calls for testing for, then I'm fine with it. Following up on any feedback will then always be the responsibility of the person who did the build. Possibly both the existing 'buildscript' and your variant should set something that shows up in hardware-summary to indicate that it's an SVN build. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [RFC] Script to build installer from SVN
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:57:03AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: > The monolithic target is currently disabled and has to be uncommented > manually before it will work. Challenge is to implement something that > will allow it to be built when requested explicitly, but to be skipped > when all_build is called. Done in r57580, and enabled in buildscript in r57581. -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [RFC] Script to build installer from SVN
Frans Pop writes: > On Sunday 15 February 2009, Otavio Salvador wrote: >> Frans Pop writes: >> > On Sunday 15 February 2009, Otavio Salvador wrote: >> >> The script itself is not yet (it still lacks debian-installer >> >> building) but it already does a good job for rest of packages. >> > >> > Have you ever looked at scripts/buildscript? >> >> Yes but mine uses cowbuilder to do all the work also tries to catch the >> architecture compatibility by itself. >> >> As I told, it is not yet ready but is already a good start and once I >> have time again I plan to finish it. >> >> What cons you see about the use of cowbuilder? > > Why should I tell you about what cons I see? I've never even used > cowbuilder myself. Why don't you instead tell me what's so wrong > with 'buildscript' that it needs to be re-implemented? The way buildscript does is completely different the way I was thinking about doing it. The script calls cowbuilder to make all required stuff in a chroot not messing with the machine where we're building it. [...] > One reason I did not want to discuss this privately is that I've never > been convinced we should do this at all, for a number of reasons. So I'm > really not all that motivated to look at your script at all, especially > if there are no specific questions. [...] I don't intend it to be run at really regular basis but mostly when we're preparing the release and we have it mostly "stable"; another good reason to have it is to make easier to Christian to build images and test languages. -- O T A V I OS A L V A D O R - E-mail: ota...@debian.org UIN: 5906116 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br - "Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives you the whole house." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [RFC] Script to build installer from SVN
On Sunday 15 February 2009, Otavio Salvador wrote: > Frans Pop writes: > > On Sunday 15 February 2009, Otavio Salvador wrote: > >> The script itself is not yet (it still lacks debian-installer > >> building) but it already does a good job for rest of packages. > > > > Have you ever looked at scripts/buildscript? > > Yes but mine uses cowbuilder to do all the work also tries to catch the > architecture compatibility by itself. > > As I told, it is not yet ready but is already a good start and once I > have time again I plan to finish it. > > What cons you see about the use of cowbuilder? Why should I tell you about what cons I see? I've never even used cowbuilder myself. Why don't you instead tell me what's so wrong with 'buildscript' that it needs to be re-implemented? You have a somewhat strange way of asking for comments/help: - you don't say what your goals are - you don't say what problems you're encountering that you need help with (if any) One reason I did not want to discuss this privately is that I've never been convinced we should do this at all, for a number of reasons. So I'm really not all that motivated to look at your script at all, especially if there are no specific questions. Let me give the reasons why I don't think it is a good idea: - ftp-masters are already not happy with source compliance for the daily builds [1]; this would be *a lot* worse for builds from SVN - builds from SVN are a lot more likely to be broken than daily builds and it would need to be distinguished from all the builds we already have when users report bugs; so: extra confusion and who the hell is going to do the extra work that will result from that? - if we have pending changes that are ready, someone should just take the responsibility for the upload (either a committer or someone else; IMO taking responsibility for the upload does however also include at least basic testing and staying alert for regressions) - for getting translation updates, instead of building from SVN someone should just do more frequent uploads [2] - it is extremely optimistic to expect translators to suddenly start testing installs just because their latest string changes are included The *only* valid reason I can see to do a build from SVN is when a new language has been activated and the relevant translator wants to see how it looks. But in that case such a build can much better be done on an ad-hoc basis. Cheers, FJP [1] This came up during the meeting at FOSDEM; I don't fully agree with them, but still. [2] Of course I DO NOT mean an upload every time the French translation team adds a cedille below a "c" (i.e: c -> ç), but if there are a significant number of translation updates pending for a package, that's a valid reason to do an upload. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [RFC] Script to build installer from SVN
Frans Pop writes: > On Monday 16 February 2009, Christian Perrier wrote: >> I'd suggest trying to build special netboot-style images with all >> udebs included, of course, if that's technically feasible. > > I think you mean 'monolithic' images. That is the _only_ type of image > that's actually going to include all built udebs. > > From a quick glance that is also the only thing 'buildscript' does not do > correctly: it does an official build, which does not include the > monolithic target. > > The monolithic target is currently disabled and has to be uncommented > manually before it will work. Challenge is to implement something that > will allow it to be built when requested explicitly, but to be skipped > when all_build is called. Yes that is the goal I'll look at. -- O T A V I OS A L V A D O R - E-mail: ota...@debian.org UIN: 5906116 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br - "Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives you the whole house." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [RFC] Script to build installer from SVN
Quoting Frans Pop (elen...@planet.nl): > On Monday 16 February 2009, Christian Perrier wrote: > > I'd suggest trying to build special netboot-style images with all > > udebs included, of course, if that's technically feasible. > > I think you mean 'monolithic' images. That is the _only_ type of image > that's actually going to include all built udebs. Yes, this is exactly what I meant. I'm afraid I never paid attention to the existence of this term. Thanks for the reminder. -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [RFC] Script to build installer from SVN
On Monday 16 February 2009, Christian Perrier wrote: > I'd suggest trying to build special netboot-style images with all > udebs included, of course, if that's technically feasible. I think you mean 'monolithic' images. That is the _only_ type of image that's actually going to include all built udebs. From a quick glance that is also the only thing 'buildscript' does not do correctly: it does an official build, which does not include the monolithic target. The monolithic target is currently disabled and has to be uncommented manually before it will work. Challenge is to implement something that will allow it to be built when requested explicitly, but to be skipped when all_build is called. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [RFC] Script to build installer from SVN
Quoting Otavio Salvador (ota...@debian.org): > Hello, > > Two weeks ago I ahd some time free and started to write a script to > build debian-installer using SVN sources. > > The script itself is not yet (it still lacks debian-installer building) > but it already does a good job for rest of packages. > > To allow people to take a look at it, and improve it if desired, I added > it to a GIT repository: > > https://projetos.ossystems.com.br/git/?p=users/otavio/svn-daily-builder.git;a=summary > > It is quite far from ready yet but I'm more insterested to know what > people things about it and how we could improve it to later adopt it. It's quite a long time since I dream of such a beast, with the goal to be able to provide "daily" builds with all translation updates that are synced by the regular l10n-sync jobsinstead of waiting for a package to be uploaded for translators to be able to see their translations. I have to admit I haven't looked at your script and didn't compare it with buildscript pointed by Frans, but may I risk a remark: The script currently builds all packages for the said architecture, but what will it do with those packages? I'd suggest trying to build special netboot-style images with all udebs included, of course, if that's technically feasible. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [RFC] Script to build installer from SVN
Frans Pop writes: > On Sunday 15 February 2009, Otavio Salvador wrote: >> The script itself is not yet (it still lacks debian-installer building) >> but it already does a good job for rest of packages. > > Have you ever looked at scripts/buildscript? Yes but mine uses cowbuilder to do all the work also tries to catch the architecture compatibility by itself. As I told, it is not yet ready but is already a good start and once I have time again I plan to finish it. What cons you see about the use of cowbuilder? -- O T A V I OS A L V A D O R - E-mail: ota...@debian.org UIN: 5906116 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br - "Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives you the whole house." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [RFC] Script to build installer from SVN
On Sunday 15 February 2009, Otavio Salvador wrote: > The script itself is not yet (it still lacks debian-installer building) > but it already does a good job for rest of packages. Have you ever looked at scripts/buildscript? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[RFC] Script to build installer from SVN
Hello, Two weeks ago I ahd some time free and started to write a script to build debian-installer using SVN sources. The script itself is not yet (it still lacks debian-installer building) but it already does a good job for rest of packages. To allow people to take a look at it, and improve it if desired, I added it to a GIT repository: https://projetos.ossystems.com.br/git/?p=users/otavio/svn-daily-builder.git;a=summary It is quite far from ready yet but I'm more insterested to know what people things about it and how we could improve it to later adopt it. Cheers, -- O T A V I OS A L V A D O R - E-mail: ota...@debian.org UIN: 5906116 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br - "Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives you the whole house." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
