Packagers: nightly builds?

Matt Mackall mpm at selenic.com
Mon Jan 26 10:50:15 CST 2009


On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 19:45 +0100, Mads Kiilerich wrote:
> Matt Mackall wrote, On 01/25/2009 06:02 PM:
> > I would like to start making nightly build of the stable branch
> > available. This will help our testers greatly, especially during the
> > code freeze. For starters, I'd like to see Windows and Mac plus Debian
> > and Fedora for x86.
> >
> > So let me know if it's possible to automate your build.
> >   
> 
> For Fedora (and RHEL) we have contrib/buildrpm which works pretty well. 
> Or do you have requirements it doesn't meet?
> 
> It could even be extended to publish it as a yum repository so that 
> machines could be configured to get the latest version available as 
> automatic update. Would that be interesting?
> 
> Ideally the packages should be built on machines controlled by you, 
> Matt, so that users only have to trust that you build the packages from 
> the official peer-reviewed repo on un-infected machines. How do you plan 
> to run it? On the build bots? Or on your own virtual machines?

Well I'm not likely to ever own an OS X or Windows box, so I'll instead
have to trust someone in crew.

> ("Obviously" distributions with different Python versions will require 
> different packages, and the easiest way to create them is to use 
> different build machines...)
> 
> A related question: The buildrpm packages are different from the 
> "official" Fedoras packages by Neal. I think that's fine; Fedora wants 
> to follow their policy and integerate with the rest of the system, while 
> Mercurial wants to be as close to a source build as possible. Obviously 
> we have a common interest in minimizing the gab. What is your opinion on 
> that? Do you want builds of "real Fedora packages"?

The generic answer is: distributors should upstream their changes where
possible.

-- 
http://selenic.com : development and support for Mercurial and Linux




More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list