I'm suggesting that the COPR be created with the username SugarLabs with access granted as needed. I'm in no position to act on SL behalf, that would need to come from the powers that be, I don't want to step on any toes. That way it would be "dnf copr enable SugarLabs/sugar" and not someones personal account in the docs and public archives. Oh yea, you could do some integration where a commit occurs and a rpm pops out. ;)
Just my take on things, Jerry > On November 24, 2015 at 2:24 AM "Sam P." <sam@sam.today> wrote: > > > Hi Jerry, > > A COPR would be amazing! I think that it would be amazing to have a set > of > rpms for the master branch automatically built. > > But I think there is still a role for sugar-build for like building and > developing :) It's very bad for testing though. > > Re the test suite: good idea. I have no idea why it doesn't run now and > I > don't have the time to dive into it now. > > Thanks, > Sam > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 7:07 PM, Jerry Vonau <m...@jvonau.ca> wrote: > > > Sam/others who might chime in. > > > > There has to be a better way than that, in the past there was automatic > > testing that replied on COPR(a web based rpm build system for Fedora) > > building the rpms. What is missing from git for packaging is a rpm > > spec.in > > for Fedora and whatever Debain uses that could be set via the Makefile, > > officially blessed by SugarLabs for other developers. Fedora has their > > spec > > file under git control for their release purposes, same holds true at > > OLPC > > where rpms are created for the XO's use but there is no reason not to > > have > > the packaging files freely available anyway, with that in place > > generating > > rpm out of git becomes so much easier. This will greatly help with > > testing > > as then anybody can now point COPR at their own git repo to generate a > > snapshot and build the rpms to test without having to roll the source > > rpm > > first. All you need to do is dnf enable your own copr repo and dnf > > update > > and test away like how I tested the issues with F23. Now making things > > easier for everybody should help trying to make sugar better, that is > > the > > objective right? It opens the possibility that someone can resurrect > > the > > automatic test suite that was in place in the past working again. > > > > Jerry > > > > > On November 23, 2015 at 8:33 PM Free Dom <freedompop123...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Is there an alternative since I am on Fedora 23? > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:32 PM, Free Dom > > > <freedompop123...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I am on Fedora 23. > > > > > > > > ./osbuild shell > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:28 PM, Sam P. <sam@sam.today> wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hi, > > > >> > > > >> What distribution are you on? I don't know if osbuild shell works > > > >> on > > > >> fedora because broot is not used. > > > >> > > > >> You should be able to not use the shell though. Eg. ./osbuild > > > >> run, > > > >> ./osbuild pull, ./osbuild build, etc. > > > >> > > > >> Thanks, > > > >> Sam > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015, 1:25 PM Free Dom > > > >> <freedompop123...@gmail.com> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> I am getting this error every time I attempt to run ./osbuild > > > >>> shell > > > >>> from > > > >>> the guide at > > > >>> https://developer.sugarlabs.org/dev-environment.md.html > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> Is there a dependency I am missing? > > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > > >>> Sugar-devel mailing list > > > >>> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org > > > >>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Sugar-devel mailing list > > > Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org > > > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > > _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
