Peter Nixon wrote:
--snip--
What would make the BS more compelling to me would be to have a ppc build target (and providing what I'm missing, above ;)).
I also would be interested in this.
I would also like the possibility to turn different build targets on/off per package.
That should be supported with the "ExclusiveArch" and/or "ExcludeArch" tags in spec files, e.g.: ExclusiveArch: %ix86 x86_64 ExcludeArch: ppc ppc64 See http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-specref-preamble.html#S3-RPM-SPECREF-EXCLU... http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-specref-preamble.html#S3-RPM-SPECREF-EXCLU... I don't know whether that's currently supported by the BS though.
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.
I would like to personally thank SUSE for allowing others to use the Build Service. I have 19 packages (and growing) in there at present and find it very usefull!
Hey, sure, I'm not bashing the BS ;)
Just that my situation (and for most of 3rd party SUSE Linux packagers
who are out there since some time) is pretty different: I already have
an existing infrastructure that works great.
I'm just saying that compared to that, the BS doesn't provide any
benefits as of now, at least nothing compelling.
cheers
--
-o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/
/\\