(moving this thread from smart-maintainers to opensuse-buildservice, I think its content is more relevant here ;)) Christoph Thiel wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2006, Pascal Bleser wrote:
And Christoph because you might want to check whether you've got all of those patches in the SL10.1/Factory smart RPM (but if you do a new build, please don't have a release >= 25 that supersedes my package again ;D).
I'll check our smart package soon. Now, that we have the openSUSE Build Service up and running, we might consider working on the smart package together and share the maintainership. How about that?
I don't think so.
Well, we could, and I would base my own spec on the one in the build service (though there wouldn't be any benefit for me, rather the opposite, it would be more work).
The buildservice is not interesting to me ATM because
1) the buildservice is not advertised anywhere as a repository for packages (as opposed to > 50% of SUSE Linux users already using my repository)
We will be promoting the Build Service very aggressively soon. A re-design of the web frontend is on the way and the commandline tools already work very well (IMO).
OK. But the web frontend currently is only targeted at packagers AFAIK. I really mean the end-user side of things. Don't know whether there are plans to also design an interface that's usable for end-users. And if so, what those plans look like. Unfortunately, it's all happening behind the SUSE curtain :( Navigating the BS repositories/directories is currently a PITA because there's no real concept for how those should be organized (I *don't* think putting stuff into home:/home:pbleser/smart would be a good idea, for example). There must be a single summary page that lists all the projects and packages that are in the BS.
2) I preconfigure my smart package with a lot of channel files, including packman and guru so... legal issues ?
Indeed -- but I'd rather split those channel files into a new package and have smart depend on it (or suggest it). I might even be able to put a channel package into SUSE Linux, with a reduced set of channels.
Mmmmmyeah, that would be a technical option, but not a good thing for end-users IMO. When I look at the current situation with 10.1 and its broken zypp, end-users are already struggling to install my smart RPM (mostly because it depends on rpm-python, that is not installed by default) and have to jump a few hoops because YaST2 or rug just won't work on their system: http://dev-loki.blogspot.com/2006/05/how-to-install-and-use-smart-on-suse.ht... http://spinink.net/2006/05/20/installing-smart-package-manager/ So adding another package/dependency would make things even more complex. And from a technical POV, if I put those channels into, say, smart-suse-channels.rpm, you can't really make smart.rpm depend on it because smart-suse-channels.rpm won't be in the Build Service.
At some point, smart will be in the packman repository, and then the BuildService becomes even less interesting: - no mirror infrastructure yet
This is WIP at the moment. We already push to ftp-1.gwdg.de and another mirror. Check out http://software.openSUSE.org/
Yes, I've read Adrian's mail about that. Good news :)
- no web frontend as with packman [1] [1] see http://packman-test.links2linux.org
;)
No kidding, it's really an advantage of hosting it at Packman instead of the Build Service ;)
But as for maintaining the smart package for Factory, yes, we could do it together in the BuildService (if that's already feasible with the current implementation of BS) so when I add patches to my package, I can also add them to the smart project in the BuildService.
Exactly -- have you tried osc (the python cmdline client to the openSUSE Build Serivce)?
I gave it a quick shot which was not very concluding, but mostly
because I didn't know where to create my projects (sent a mail to
opensuse-packaging two weeks ago but no reply, and it's been
reorganized anyway).
I definitely have to give it another shot. osc is obviously the
approach that I prefer and suits me best, a simple CLI client (and not
a web frontend).
Thanks to Peter for writing it :)
I don't want to discard or discredit your efforts on the BuildService,
but I really don't see any advantage for me in using it at the moment,
it's rather the opposite:
- I build for SUSE 9.1 -> 10.1, and only 10.0, 10.1 and Factory are in
the BS as of now (AFAIK)
- no web frontend for end-users as I'll have with Packman
Note that I don't care at all about building for other distributions.
What would make the BS more compelling to me would be to have a ppc
build target (and providing what I'm missing, above ;)).
Of course, that's my very personal POV, in the light of building
packages that are not provided at all on SUSE Linux or that could only
be built as a crippled subset because of potential legal/patent issues.
It's a totally different case concerning packages that are already in
the distribution, that I could co-maintain directly and that are built
as full-fledged because they're not in the gray legal/patent realm.
cheers
--
-o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/
/\\