On 2011-1-10 17:29 , Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
>
> Assuming that Bill already had everything up and running (and I know
> that there were some glitches with the last upgrade that still need to
> be resolved), what would be the setup instructions for configuring and
> running MBAP in the configurati
On Jan 7, 2011, at 9:35 PM, Joshua Root wrote:
> It's frustrating having to wait on things outside our control, but I'm
> sure Bill is doing everything he can to make it happen.
Assuming that Bill already had everything up and running (and I know that there
were some glitches with the last upgr
On 2011-1-9 02:51 , Jeremy Lavergne wrote:
>>> Why can't maintainers offer their archives alongside the ones from
>>> MacPorts' MPAB?
>>
>> They can. They just can't have them officially endorsed.
>
> Does putting our own archives (signed by our own keys) in a portfile's
> archive_sites constitu
On Jan 7, 2011, at 9:35 PM, Joshua Root wrote:
> On 2011-1-8 15:25 , Rainer Müller wrote:
>> In the past we discussed that Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard on Intel x86_64
>> would be the choice which is most common, so we would start with that.
>> That was some time ago, but I guess it's still valid. W
>> Why can't maintainers offer their archives alongside the ones from MacPorts'
>> MPAB?
>
> They can. They just can't have them officially endorsed.
Does putting our own archives (signed by our own keys) in a portfile's
archive_sites constitute endorsement?
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cry
On 2011-1-8 16:02 , Jeremy Lavergne wrote:
>> As another problem, if we use keys for each maintainer, how do we make sure
>> none of the private keys will ever be compromised (carrying around on mobile
>> devices, tiresome typing of a passphrase, etc.)? I might be a little bit
>> paranoid on thi
On 2011-1-8 15:25 , Rainer Müller wrote:
> In the past we discussed that Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard on Intel x86_64
> would be the choice which is most common, so we would start with that.
> That was some time ago, but I guess it's still valid. We can always add
> others later.
>
> We do not have
> As another problem, if we use keys for each maintainer, how do we make sure
> none of the private keys will ever be compromised (carrying around on mobile
> devices, tiresome typing of a passphrase, etc.)? I might be a little bit
> paranoid on this, but we have to consider the weakest link her
On 2011-01-07 04:39 , Jeremy Lavergne wrote:
>> I thought we decided before that we don't want individual
>> maintainers distributing archives, but that we want a central
>> server farm creating and distributing them?
I concur with Ryan, having a central build infrastructure will be
better. MPAB i
> The best way to achieve that is by using the environment variable (or a
> locally customised _resources/port1.0/fetch/archive_sites.tcl),
> otherwise it won't just be people on the -dev list testing the feature.
archive_mode would have to be on. At worst, all people interested in trying out
the
On 2011-1-8 01:42 , Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2011, at 10:39 PM, Jeremy Lavergne wrote:
>>
>>> I thought we decided before that we don't want individual maintainers
>>> distributing archives, but that we want a central server farm creating and
>>> distributing them?
>>
>> Will the build f
On Jan 6, 2011, at 10:39 PM, Jeremy Lavergne wrote:
>
>> I thought we decided before that we don't want individual maintainers
>> distributing archives, but that we want a central server farm creating and
>> distributing them?
>
> Will the build farm handle all supported combinations of OS and
> I thought we decided before that we don't want individual maintainers
> distributing archives, but that we want a central server farm creating and
> distributing them?
Will the build farm handle all supported combinations of OS and architecture?
Will the distfile policy change similarly, requ
On Jan 6, 2011, at 13:14, Jeremy Lavergne wrote:
> MacPorts allows us to provide package archives through archive_sites, much
> like master_sites. I had previously been asked to use an environment variable
> rather than make use of archive_sites, however this no longer makes much
> sense to me
MacPorts allows us to provide package archives through archive_sites, much like
master_sites. I had previously been asked to use an environment variable rather
than make use of archive_sites, however this no longer makes much sense to me:
archives are stored in different files based on OS and ar
15 matches
Mail list logo
