Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-gnome (124 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-gnome] GNOME:Factory / GNOME:Factory:Next / GNOME:Stable / GNOME:Unstable etc etc
  • From: Magnus Boman <captain.magnus@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:23:17 +1100
  • Message-id: <1232248997.7116.13.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Sun, 2009-01-18 at 03:57 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
Le jeudi 15 janvier 2009, à 07:38 +1100, Magnus Boman a écrit :
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 13:12 +0530, Suman Manjunath wrote:
On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 14:23 +0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
1. Should we copy all packages from G:F to a GNOME:Stable (I think we
have a G:S but don't know the state of it. We might want to start from
scratch here) and then update to 2.24.3

might be a good idea, I guess


Ok, so remaining questions are, do we use copypac or links? Using links
will put some maintenance burden on the project beyond just having the
latest stable GNOME release, since packages will break every now and
again when patches are created for 11.1/GNOME components.

Also, is G:S enough, or should we have a sub-project called G:S:2.24? I
mean, what will happen once 2.26 is released? Wipe G:C and start over,
or, by using subprojects, create G:C:2.26

I'm replying late, but it's better than never, isn't it? :-)

So, having just G:S is clearly not enough for two reasons:

+ for which distro G:S will be built?

Currently released version and *maybe* the previously released version

+ for which version of GNOME is it?

G:S will be the latest GNOME 2.24.x until 11.2 is released

If we just go for one G:S for everything, then it means we'll have the
one version of GNOME for all distros. This sounds impossible, and
probably not what we want.

G:F will build the current GNOME version (2.25.x atm) for both Factory
and the currently released version (11.1).

I'd prefer to have something like G:S:11.1 (similar scheme to oS:11.1),
or even just G:11.1. The problem with this way is that it only proposes
one version of GNOME for one version of the distro.

So, we have then your propoal: G:S:2.24 which builds for 11.1 and
11.0 (G:S:2.26 would build for 11.1 and 11.2, etc.). One downside of
this is that it's not clear to people for which version of openSUSE this

Hmmm. No conclusion here. I tend to prefer to have a scheme based on the
openSUSE version. Oh, here's an idea:

+ G:11.1 -- this is oS:11.1 and it's used for working on updates to
11.1 that will be officially shipped by openSUSE
+ G:11.1:2.24 -- this is the latest 2.24 version for 11.1
It's not official, but should still be fairly stable.
+ G:11.1:2.26 -- this is GNOME X+1 version for 11.1
It's not official, but should still be stable too.

We still have one issue: if I update the 2.26 version of libwnck, I only
want to update it in one project, instead of updating it in G:11.1:2.26
and G:11.2:2.26. Having G:2.26 being built for 11.1 and 11.2 is
therefore a good thing.
=> G:11.1:2.26 would be a kind of alias for "G:2.26 built for 11.1".
Not sure how we can handle that in the build service (we should
avoid linkpac since this involves rebuilds, and using aggregates
will use twice as much disk space on the server...)

I don't think this is really doable due to the way OBS works currently
(both linkpac and aggregate, as you mention, have their issues).
I created FATE#305689 to be able to create meta-repositories in OBS, but
until we have something like that we probably don't want this.

2. For each GNOME . release (2.25.4, 2.25.5 etc), should we do a
complete update in G:F:N and then later merge them to G:F (Makes it
possible to use G:F as a 'stable development' branch)

I think G:F:N is good for doing the 1st mass update for a new version,
so that we don't break G:F, but once we have the unstable in G:F, I
guess we can just update there, and have G:F:N be just a link to G:F, so
that packages get built for 11.1

Most packages submitted to G:F:N are typically built once in a personal
repo somewhere (I hope :-) ). So there probably is no need for G:F:N to
be a test bed for the next update to G:F.

This is true for individual packages but not for GNOME overall. My plan
was that if we update everything in G:F:N (or whatever we chose to call
it) and only merge when it's all up-to-date, people can use G:F for
testing as well as opening up the possibility of creating LiveCD's with
consistent versions.
As also mentioned, this might cause to much work for whoever is
responsible for merging to G:F and then forwarding to oS:F.

Nod. As long as we don't have a good way to merge things, G:F:N is not
something we'll be able to do forever. So I'd go the easy way and say
that we go straight to G:F. It should still be of good quality anyway
for testing (I mean: if it's broken on G:F:N, then no-one will notice
since nobody use G:F:N on his machine; so it's the same thing).

I am using it :-)


To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-gnome+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups