On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 04:35:28PM +0200, Klaas Freitag wrote:
Am Samstag, 12. Juli 2008 01:01:55 schrieb Peter Poeml: Hi,
Then, I see the following:
% osc meta pkg openSUSE:Factory gconf2 | grep devel <devel project="GNOME:Factory"/> % osc meta pkg GNOME:Factory gconf2 | grep devel <devel project="GNOME:UNSTABLE"/>
osc looks up in openSUSE:Factory that gconf2's develproject is set to GNOME:Factory. But it doesn't look there if there is (even) another develproject. One or two or three other chained devel projects? Hmm. And finally the nightmare case devel project 5 again points to project 1 :-(
Gee... I am not sure if this is intended in this way :-) I do not see a reason atm why chaining should not be allowed from a technical POV as long as we successfully avoid circles. However, the question is if we get a benefit from really using it - a benefit that is bigger than the confusion that might arise from that. Not sure atm. What do others think?
Klaas
I have the following thoughts about it right now: This is clearly not how we designed this attribute. It were meant as THE primary place where development takes place. A place of which, by definition, there can only be one. Now, I see it can be desirable for users to have a defined path where changes are moved from A to B to C and then to Factory. For instance, it might be desirable that changes always first go to foo:KAPUTT first, then to foo:UNSTABLE, foo:STABLE, then to openSUSE:Factory. However, I consider it misuse of the devel project attribute to use it to define this path (Albeit a good idea ;). This is because it defeats the purpose of defining the place where changes shall go _first_. That's what it meant for, and it's actually (more) important to have an attribute for this, because its (original) purpose is to avoid submissions to some other place in the path. Peter -- Contact: admin@opensuse.org (a.k.a. ftpadmin@suse.com) #opensuse-mirrors on freenode.net Info: http://en.opensuse.org/Mirror_Infrastructure SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Research & Development