On 5.11.2015 14:28, Josef Reidinger wrote: >> That is entirely exaggerated: On my machine I can work on >> libstorage, snapper and yast2-core without having to change the >> set of installed packages. Maybe that's different in the Ruby >> world but for C/C++ some extra libraries in general do not hurt. > > so you propose to create such heavy weight beast image that contain all > development libraries in our cloud setup? And ensure everything is up > to date. And to be honest it is not some, it is a lot of libraries, its > devel packages and generators ( like bison or flex ). > > So you create for all distribution such beast with tons of extra > libraries and then using it? And do you expect that newcomers do it > same way? I think maybe some other people that touch yast and snapper > or libstorage can compare how hard/easy is to contribute and use such > infrastructure, how well it is documented and so on.
Let's put it this way: Let developers do what they want - I do not care how and where someone develops code if it's good, understandable, well-covered by unit tests and well-documented. But what I do care is this: when we have a continuous automation for validation (build and check), then I want it to be simple and unified. I do not want special hacky per-repository Sherl scripts, cloud images, or anything like that. I want to use tools that exist for the purpose they can do best. As an example: build service builds packages, we have to use it anyway (OBS/IBS) and thus I want build service for that task. Thank you Lukas -- Lukas Ocilka, Systems Management (Yast) Team Leader SLE Department, SUSE Linux -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] To contact the owner, e-mail: [email protected]
