[opensuse-arm] Re: Converting products to the new system
On Mittwoch, 12. Juli 2017, 08:19:02 CEST wrote Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar:
On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 08:13 +0200, Adrian Schröter wrote:
Hi,
Dimstar has started to convert the product builds to the new product-builder in Factory yesterday.
Andreas Schwab did start also for ARM.
I created the new definitions also for zSystems and PowerPC now.
Shouldn't the package from openSUSE:Factory trickle through to the ports?
Yes, and it does.
They are all project lniks against openSUSE:Factory. Seems odd that there is extra work involved in the ports (other than keeping the .group files updated, which is done by bots - update pending)
We do maintain the product configurations currently seperatly. You could of course also merge ARM/PPC/zSystems into your main package. We would not need the additional container then. However, that means you may need to change stuff in openSUSE:Factory to fix product builds in openSUSE:Factory:ARM.
As for removing _product from openSUSE:Factory - I think that's a good thing to do, BUT it will, as far as I've seen, likely crash the factory dashobard (is that finally under maintenance of the OBS team, see fate#320770)
I don't see that we committed to that, but we can take a look ;) -- Adrian Schroeter email: adrian@suse.de SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstraße 5 90409 Nürnberg Germany -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-arm+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-arm+owner@opensuse.org
On Jul 12 2017, Adrian Schröter <adrian@suse.de> wrote:
On Mittwoch, 12. Juli 2017, 08:19:02 CEST wrote Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar:
Shouldn't the package from openSUSE:Factory trickle through to the ports?
Yes, and it does.
Does it? I don't see how. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, schwab@suse.de GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE 1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7 "And now for something completely different." -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-arm+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-arm+owner@opensuse.org
On Mittwoch, 12. Juli 2017, 10:16:58 CEST wrote Andreas Schwab:
On Jul 12 2017, Adrian Schröter <adrian@suse.de> wrote:
On Mittwoch, 12. Juli 2017, 08:19:02 CEST wrote Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar:
Shouldn't the package from openSUSE:Factory trickle through to the ports?
Yes, and it does.
Does it? I don't see how.
it does not anymore, since I re-created the 000product container in the ports projects. But it would get the one from openSUSE:Factory if you drop that one again from openSUSE:Factory:$Port -- Adrian Schroeter email: adrian@suse.de SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstraße 5 90409 Nürnberg Germany -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-arm+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-arm+owner@opensuse.org
On Jul 12 2017, Adrian Schröter <adrian@suse.de> wrote:
On Mittwoch, 12. Juli 2017, 10:16:58 CEST wrote Andreas Schwab:
On Jul 12 2017, Adrian Schröter <adrian@suse.de> wrote:
On Mittwoch, 12. Juli 2017, 08:19:02 CEST wrote Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar:
Shouldn't the package from openSUSE:Factory trickle through to the ports?
Yes, and it does.
Does it? I don't see how.
it does not anymore, since I re-created the 000product container in the ports projects.
That the point. If you would have branched it it would get updated. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, schwab@suse.de GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE 1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7 "And now for something completely different." -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-arm+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-arm+owner@opensuse.org
Hi, 2017-07-12 11:46 GMT+02:00 Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>:
it does not anymore, since I re-created the 000product container in the ports projects. That the point. If you would have branched it it would get updated.
is there a problem with just rebranching it and repairing the messup? I agree that it probably makes a lot more sense to have them branched (ideally with a next-to-zero diff). Greetings, Dirk -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-arm+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-arm+owner@opensuse.org
On Mittwoch, 12. Juli 2017, 13:29:06 CEST wrote Dirk Müller:
Hi,
2017-07-12 11:46 GMT+02:00 Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>:
it does not anymore, since I re-created the 000product container in the ports projects. That the point. If you would have branched it it would get updated.
is there a problem with just rebranching it and repairing the messup? I agree that it probably makes a lot more sense to have them branched (ideally with a next-to-zero diff).
no, as written before, it is a good idea, _if_ you plan to merge them. So far we had complete seperated setups and I did not want to create new conflicts therefore. Just getting the status quo using the new product files. -- Adrian Schroeter email: adrian@suse.de SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstraße 5 90409 Nürnberg Germany -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-arm+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-arm+owner@opensuse.org
On Jul 12 2017, Adrian Schröter <adrian@suse.de> wrote:
So far we had complete seperated setups
So far the _product packages were branched. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, schwab@suse.de GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE 1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7 "And now for something completely different." -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-arm+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-arm+owner@opensuse.org
On Mittwoch, 12. Juli 2017, 11:46:58 CEST wrote Andreas Schwab:
On Jul 12 2017, Adrian Schröter <adrian@suse.de> wrote:
On Mittwoch, 12. Juli 2017, 10:16:58 CEST wrote Andreas Schwab:
On Jul 12 2017, Adrian Schröter <adrian@suse.de> wrote:
On Mittwoch, 12. Juli 2017, 08:19:02 CEST wrote Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar:
Shouldn't the package from openSUSE:Factory trickle through to the ports?
Yes, and it does.
Does it? I don't see how.
it does not anymore, since I re-created the 000product container in the ports projects.
That the point. If you would have branched it it would get updated.
yes, but this doesn't make sense in the way we maintain it atm. It would just regulary break, because of changes in openSUSE:Factory. This makes only sense when we plan to submit the changes back to openSUSE:Factory. -- Adrian Schroeter email: adrian@suse.de SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstraße 5 90409 Nürnberg Germany -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-arm+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-arm+owner@opensuse.org
Hi Adrian, 2017-07-12 13:29 GMT+02:00 Adrian Schröter <adrian@suse.de>:
It would just regulary break, because of changes in openSUSE:Factory.
This makes only sense when we plan to submit the changes back to openSUSE:Factory.
Not sure I understand that. 90%+ of the changes we do are in the DVD5-aarch64.group file, which is by definition conflict free to the base. I don't see a _servicedata file that would e.g. constantly conflict. I would actually welcome the change that the tumblweed team would maintain the DVD5-aarch64.group file in the base product, so far that wasn't wanted but since this is mostly mechanical I think it might help us in reducing the workload. Greetings, Dirk -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-arm+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-arm+owner@opensuse.org
On Mittwoch, 12. Juli 2017, 13:34:46 CEST wrote Dirk Müller:
Hi Adrian,
2017-07-12 13:29 GMT+02:00 Adrian Schröter <adrian@suse.de>:
It would just regulary break, because of changes in openSUSE:Factory.
This makes only sense when we plan to submit the changes back to openSUSE:Factory.
Not sure I understand that. 90%+ of the changes we do are in the DVD5-aarch64.group file, which is by definition conflict free to the base. I don't see a _servicedata file that would e.g. constantly conflict.
no, the repo, media and architecture definitions are more likely to conflict. However, it is up to you to try it. Just keep in mind that the source service will not run on underlying changes and you need still manually to merge them.
I would actually welcome the change that the tumblweed team would maintain the DVD5-aarch64.group file in the base product, so far that wasn't wanted but since this is mostly mechanical I think it might help us in reducing the workload.
IMHO the way better approch .... In this case you might indeed want to branch from the 000product from openSUSE:Factory and submit request your changes back. It seems Dominique is also fine with this. -- Adrian Schroeter email: adrian@suse.de SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstraße 5 90409 Nürnberg Germany -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-arm+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-arm+owner@opensuse.org
On Jul 12 2017, Adrian Schröter <adrian@suse.de> wrote:
no, the repo, media and architecture definitions are more likely to conflict.
Such conflicts happen only very rarely. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, schwab@suse.de GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE 1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7 "And now for something completely different." -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-arm+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-arm+owner@opensuse.org
participants (3)
-
Adrian Schröter -
Andreas Schwab -
Dirk Müller