Re: [leaf-devel] CVS tags
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Erich Titl wrote: > Charles Steinkuehler wrote: >> Erich Titl wrote: >>>- adding a tag does not create overhead to the CVS archive (unless we >>>use subversion) >> >> Tags do not create overhead in subversion, either. > > I must have misunderstood you then, probably mistook tagging for branching > > Thanks for setting this right Actually, 'tagging' and 'branching' are identical in subversion, and both are low-overhead, "zero-copy" processes. Sorry if I confused anybody about this earlier. - -- Charles Steinkuehler [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEX8GcLywbqEHdNFwRAkXhAKD91if/KOOu20hbJiS9pgD8wCAKvgCgvViE MAXRYdk53YCABqYzB2yztJc= =fHmt -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] CVS tags
Charles Steinkuehler wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Erich Titl wrote: > > >>- adding a tag does not create overhead to the CVS archive (unless we >>use subversion) > > > Tags do not create overhead in subversion, either. I must have misunderstood you then, probably mistook tagging for branching Thanks for setting this right Erich ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] CVS tags
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Erich Titl wrote: > - adding a tag does not create overhead to the CVS archive (unless we > use subversion) Tags do not create overhead in subversion, either. - -- Charles Steinkuehler [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEX26FLywbqEHdNFwRAqJ/AJwJMVw7dtSQkM6F/FQnG7zEUT3sdQCeOUy1 xVaOa4T/MYltOOlYTAM4eM0= =7uuu -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] CVS tags
On Sun, 2006-05-07 at 10:07, Erich Titl wrote: > Mike Noyes wrote: > > On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 13:17, Martin Hejl wrote: > > > >>>Ideally, building from a local working-copy of the repository will be > >>>fairly easy (it sounds like this is getting tested RealSoonNow). This > >>>would separate download problems from actually building the source > >>>(possibly important for those with flaky internet access, or folks using > >>>the flaky sourceforge CVS servers! :). > >> > >>Well, that's what the whole "we supply a tarball of everything you need, > >>and put it into FRS" approach was all about. But it seems that is not an > >>approved approach. > > > > > > Martin, > > That approach is fine. I just thought the tag approach was easier. > > > > May I suggest to add a tag anyway for the following reasons > > - tags do not hurt CVS operation in any way, just make it easier to > retrieve a certain version. > - tags are easy to add > - tags will work with the current buildtool although it is not used by it > - adding a tag is faster than to build a tar file, such an archive is a > nice shortcut though > - adding a tag does not create overhead to the CVS archive (unless we > use subversion) Erich, I agree with all the above, and have advocated tag use since 2002. http://www.mail-archive.com/leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg05183.html -- Mike Noyes http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ SF.net Projects: leaf, phpwebsite, phpwebsite-comm, sitedocs ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] CVS tags
Mike Noyes wrote: > On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 13:17, Martin Hejl wrote: > >>>Ideally, building from a local working-copy of the repository will be >>>fairly easy (it sounds like this is getting tested RealSoonNow). This >>>would separate download problems from actually building the source >>>(possibly important for those with flaky internet access, or folks using >>>the flaky sourceforge CVS servers! :). >> >>Well, that's what the whole "we supply a tarball of everything you need, >>and put it into FRS" approach was all about. But it seems that is not an >>approved approach. > > > Martin, > That approach is fine. I just thought the tag approach was easier. > May I suggest to add a tag anyway for the following reasons - tags do not hurt CVS operation in any way, just make it easier to retrieve a certain version. - tags are easy to add - tags will work with the current buildtool although it is not used by it - adding a tag is faster than to build a tar file, such an archive is a nice shortcut though - adding a tag does not create overhead to the CVS archive (unless we use subversion) my $0.02 Erich ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] CVS tags
On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 13:17, Martin Hejl wrote: > > Ideally, building from a local working-copy of the repository will be > > fairly easy (it sounds like this is getting tested RealSoonNow). This > > would separate download problems from actually building the source > > (possibly important for those with flaky internet access, or folks using > > the flaky sourceforge CVS servers! :). > > Well, that's what the whole "we supply a tarball of everything you need, > and put it into FRS" approach was all about. But it seems that is not an > approved approach. Martin, That approach is fine. I just thought the tag approach was easier. -- Mike Noyes http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ SF.net Projects: leaf, phpwebsite, phpwebsite-comm, sitedocs ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] CVS tags
Hi Charles, > This is where subversion's branching would really shine. You would > simply change the repository URL in the main config file and 'head' > would point to the latest version of that branch, which is probably what > you'd want (ie: security updates/bug fixes included). Ah, ok, I get it. Thanks for the clarification. > You would have the same problems the current CVS version has with > versions if you wanted to build to a particular repository version > number, rather than the latest version of a branch/tag, however. Right. > Ideally, building from a local working-copy of the repository will be > fairly easy (it sounds like this is getting tested RealSoonNow). This > would separate download problems from actually building the source > (possibly important for those with flaky internet access, or folks using > the flaky sourceforge CVS servers! :). Well, that's what the whole "we supply a tarball of everything you need, and put it into FRS" approach was all about. But it seems that is not an approved approach. > This would also somewhat isolate > buildtool from the actual download mechanism, making it possible to use > subversion, bit-keeper, perforce, or whatever should anyone want to. It > would also mean buildtool wouldn't have to be updated to support > building arbitrary versions...you could select from one (or a few) major > revisions and get automatic downloads/builds by adjusting the repository > URL, and manually create a working copy to build from if you wanted some > arbitrary version of a package (or packages) for some reason. I don't disagree with any of that, but you need to see it from my point of view. I do not have the time to make that migration, and to me, building old sources is not a priority (I already can do that for the old packages I need to support, because I have backups of my old buildenvs stashed away somewhere). So, to me, the whole thing would mean spending time I don't have on something that lets me do things I can already do. Now, believe me, I surely understand that there's more to software development than doing just the "cool stuff" that one is interested in - but since that pretty much sums up my day at work, I'll opt to not do so in my evenings as well, at least for something I don't consider to be something critical. I'm not going to debate the fact that it would surely be nice if somebody did it though > I have briefly looked at the buildtool source in CVS, and it looks like > it would be pretty simple to add a subversion download method. If I get > some spare time I may try to do this, although I'm not exactly a perl guru. You are very welcome to try (and don't hesitate to ask if you run into trouble - at leat, the "non-subversion" kind of trouble ;-)) - I just don't have the time to do the work (and worse, the testing - doing a fresh checkout of everything and a rebuild uses up a whole evening on my internet connection/build environment). Martin ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] CVS tags
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Martin Hejl wrote: > Hi Erich, > >> I assume the code within buildtool to access a certain file is pretty >> central. How difficult is it for this piece of code to use an >> environment variable specifying a TAG (defaulting to HEAD). > > It is, but that doesn't solve the problem. The idea behind buildtool is > that it can use whatever sources (getting them from CVS is only one > option, FTP and HTTP are others). So, the version to fetch is stored in > a config file (buildtool.cfg, one for each package) - and currently, all > those contain "HEAD". It would probably be possible to add some hack to > ignore the HEAD from the config and use something else (something the > user provided) instead, but I haven't tried it. This is where subversion's branching would really shine. You would simply change the repository URL in the main config file and 'head' would point to the latest version of that branch, which is probably what you'd want (ie: security updates/bug fixes included). You would have the same problems the current CVS version has with versions if you wanted to build to a particular repository version number, rather than the latest version of a branch/tag, however. Ideally, building from a local working-copy of the repository will be fairly easy (it sounds like this is getting tested RealSoonNow). This would separate download problems from actually building the source (possibly important for those with flaky internet access, or folks using the flaky sourceforge CVS servers! :). This would also somewhat isolate buildtool from the actual download mechanism, making it possible to use subversion, bit-keeper, perforce, or whatever should anyone want to. It would also mean buildtool wouldn't have to be updated to support building arbitrary versions...you could select from one (or a few) major revisions and get automatic downloads/builds by adjusting the repository URL, and manually create a working copy to build from if you wanted some arbitrary version of a package (or packages) for some reason. I have briefly looked at the buildtool source in CVS, and it looks like it would be pretty simple to add a subversion download method. If I get some spare time I may try to do this, although I'm not exactly a perl guru. - -- Charles Steinkuehler [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEW67OLywbqEHdNFwRAi2RAKC3V+qmdhLUBwr4AqFgyyutSZfFPQCeOWm/ vnngyLeIT/yvhHPN3KRcjQA= =vqrP -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] CVS tags
Hi again, Martin Hejl wrote: > * Check out src/bering-uclibc/buildtool for the release branch of 2.4.1 > * check out src/bering-uclibc/apps for the release branch of 2.4.1 > * modify cvs-sourceforge use the "file" target for server > cvs-sourceforge and make it point to the cvs checkout of > src/bering-uclibc/apps made above > * hope that we didn't forget to remove the cvs-sourceforge server > specification in any of the buildtool.cfg files (and that none of the > sources point to cvs-devel or some other site that doesn't use proper > versioning - the latter is unlikely, but possible). just to clarify - there is no "release branch" at this time, so one would have to do the checkout based on date (2006-04-24 for 2.4.1, unless I'm mistaken). Martin ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] CVS tags
Hi Mike, > Is buildtool able to use a checked out working copy to build from? It is, if one adjusts the main config (changes the "cvs-sourceforge" server setting in conf/sources.cfg to use the "file" type, which will use the local filesystem rather than CVS). But wether that will work to build an old release is something I don't know (I never needed to do that - buildtool was originally created to make life easier for the people working on Bering-uClibc - and those tend to work on HEAD, rather than anything else). It could probably be made to be something else as well, but that will require at least some testing, possibly some coding (the Bering uClibc team has a couple of ideas we'll try as soon as there's time - but until we've actually tried it, everything I say here is pure speculation, because nobody has done that so far). Again, if anybody wants to for himself, he's more than welcome to. My approach would be: * Check out src/bering-uclibc/buildtool for the release branch of 2.4.1 * check out src/bering-uclibc/apps for the release branch of 2.4.1 * modify cvs-sourceforge use the "file" target for server cvs-sourceforge and make it point to the cvs checkout of src/bering-uclibc/apps made above * hope that we didn't forget to remove the cvs-sourceforge server specification in any of the buildtool.cfg files (and that none of the sources point to cvs-devel or some other site that doesn't use proper versioning - the latter is unlikely, but possible). > Isn't > building from checked out working copies best? I can't imagine pulling > content from anonymous/developer cvs during the build process is > painless. It used to be (a while ago), but it hasn't been for quite a while. That's why Arne added support for using CVSExt to buildtool, so one can download the sources using one's developer account (and with that, it is rather painless). Martin --- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] CVS tags
Hi Erich, > I assume the code within buildtool to access a certain file is pretty > central. How difficult is it for this piece of code to use an > environment variable specifying a TAG (defaulting to HEAD). It is, but that doesn't solve the problem. The idea behind buildtool is that it can use whatever sources (getting them from CVS is only one option, FTP and HTTP are others). So, the version to fetch is stored in a config file (buildtool.cfg, one for each package) - and currently, all those contain "HEAD". It would probably be possible to add some hack to ignore the HEAD from the config and use something else (something the user provided) instead, but I haven't tried it. > I agree it > might not be the most elegant method, but might work. It might (I really don't know if it would catch everything, or miss some special cases nobody is thinking about right now). If somebody is willing to give it a shot, [s]he is more than welcome to do so. Martin --- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] CVS tags
Hi Mike; Am Freitag, 5. Mai 2006 19:24 schrieb Mike Noyes: > On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 09:10, Martin Hejl wrote: > > Mike Noyes wrote: > > > Tagging the release in cvs is easier. > > > > > > http://ximbiot.com/cvs/manual/cvs-1.11.21/cvs_4.html#SEC48 > > > > Adding the tag is not the problem. > > Martin, > Agreed, and this is probably causing me confusion. > > > Updating buildtool to use the tag/branch is. That's why creating a > > snapshot of a buildenv "base" (all the sources downloaded, but nothing > > compiled yet) is much easier for us than tagging the release, creating > > a maintenance branch (up to here I agree that it would be painfully > > easy) and modifying buildtool to be able to use the tags/branches for > > downloading filew via viewcvs. the way it is right now, buildtool > > simply downloads everything from HEAD - the code to let buildtool know > > which release branch to download packages for is simply not written at > > this point, > > Ok. I think I finally see the issue. > > Is buildtool able to use a checked out working copy to build from? Isn't > building from checked out working copies best? I can't imagine pulling > content from anonymous/developer cvs during the build process is > painless. It isn't; and even using the restricted area can be harmful (broken downloads). But it is the current approach. And it was a step forward to build a LEAF router from the sources. > > and I don't see anybody who has time/is willing to write that code > > right now. > > I wasn't asking for that. I thought it was a simple matter of adding the > cvs tag for releases. I mistakenly(?) thought buildtool used a working > copy for building. I will test, if it's possible... kp --- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] CVS tags
Martin Martin Hejl wrote: ..> Adding the tag is not the problem. Updating buildtool to use the tag/branch is. That's why creating a snapshot of a buildenv "base" (all the sources downloaded, but nothing compiled yet) is much easier for us than tagging the release, creating a maintenance branch (up to here I agree that it would be painfully easy) and modifying buildtool to be able to use the tags/branches for downloading filew via viewcvs. the way it is right now, buildtool simply downloads everything from HEAD - the code to let buildtool know which release branch to download packages for is simply not written at this point, and I don't see anybody who has time/is willing to write that code right now. I assume the code within buildtool to access a certain file is pretty central. How difficult is it for this piece of code to use an environment variable specifying a TAG (defaulting to HEAD). I agree it might not be the most elegant method, but might work. cheers Erich --- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] CVS tags
On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 09:10, Martin Hejl wrote: > Mike Noyes wrote: > > Tagging the release in cvs is easier. > > > > http://ximbiot.com/cvs/manual/cvs-1.11.21/cvs_4.html#SEC48 > > Adding the tag is not the problem. Martin, Agreed, and this is probably causing me confusion. > Updating buildtool to use the tag/branch is. That's why creating a > snapshot of a buildenv "base" (all the sources downloaded, but nothing > compiled yet) is much easier for us than tagging the release, creating > a maintenance branch (up to here I agree that it would be painfully > easy) and modifying buildtool to be able to use the tags/branches for > downloading filew via viewcvs. the way it is right now, buildtool > simply downloads everything from HEAD - the code to let buildtool know > which release branch to download packages for is simply not written at > this point, Ok. I think I finally see the issue. Is buildtool able to use a checked out working copy to build from? Isn't building from checked out working copies best? I can't imagine pulling content from anonymous/developer cvs during the build process is painless. > and I don't see anybody who has time/is willing to write that code > right now. I wasn't asking for that. I thought it was a simple matter of adding the cvs tag for releases. I mistakenly(?) thought buildtool used a working copy for building. -- Mike Noyes http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ SF.net Projects: leaf, phpwebsite, phpwebsite-comm, sitedocs --- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] CVS tags
Hi Mike, Mike Noyes wrote: > Subject was: Re: [leaf-devel] Glitch in initrd backup when using > alternative initrdfile > > On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 02:58, Eric Spakman wrote: > >>>How does one to go about building the buildenv for a specific release, >>>e.g. does CVS have release tags? For example, if I wanted to have a >>>buildenv which matches _exactly_ the one for 2.4.1 how to proceed? >>> >> >>There currently aren't any release tags unfortuanatly. But everything in >>CVS is exactly 2.4.1, so if you build buildenv you would have version >>2.4.1. >> >>The Bering-uClibc team will make a snapshot of the current tree and put >>the sources in a tarball in the File release area. > > > Eric, > Please reconsider this decision. Tagging the release in cvs is easier. > > http://ximbiot.com/cvs/manual/cvs-1.11.21/cvs_4.html#SEC48 Adding the tag is not the problem. Updating buildtool to use the tag/branch is. That's why creating a snapshot of a buildenv "base" (all the sources downloaded, but nothing compiled yet) is much easier for us than tagging the release, creating a maintenance branch (up to here I agree that it would be painfully easy) and modifying buildtool to be able to use the tags/branches for downloading filew via viewcvs. the way it is right now, buildtool simply downloads everything from HEAD - the code to let buildtool know which release branch to download packages for is simply not written at this point, and I don't see anybody who has time/is willing to write that code right now. Martin --- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [leaf-devel] CVS tags
Hi Mike, >> The Bering-uClibc team will make a snapshot of the current tree and put >> the sources in a tarball in the File release area. > > Eric, > Please reconsider this decision. Tagging the release in cvs is easier. > > http://ximbiot.com/cvs/manual/cvs-1.11.21/cvs_4.html#SEC48 > If this is easier to do, it's definitly preferable. Eric --- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 ___ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
