[Mageia-dev] automagically submitting correctly

Wed Feb 23 00:15:20 CET 2011

Op woensdag 23 februari 2011 00:07:59 schreef Thomas Backlund:
+> On 23.2.2011 00:54, Maarten Vanraes wrote:
+> > I've been thinking on submission (since i'm a novice packager, i have no
+> > good experience with this, so i ended up talking to my mentor on
+> > submission stuff).
+> > 
+> > So i was thinking:
+> > .spec files are used to tell the buildbot how to build and package an
+> > srpm.
+> > 
+> > why don't we have a similar way to do submission? (or even include this
+> > in spec file?)
+> > 
+> > the things is, i want something that should work in most, if not all
+> > cases, but still be simple.
+> > 
+> > what would be interesting:
+> >   * submission parameters: ie: where to put rpm (core, tainted, non-free)
+> 
+> Not really needed, as it's only the first time you submit a package you
+> need to specify repo, after that the bs knows where to put it...
+
+ah, that is interesting to know
+ 
+> > or nice to have:
+> >   * make this also work multiple times, for packages that are submitted
+> > 
+> > multiple times (think about tainted stuff, that is rebuilt with extra
+> > %define), and still have only one srpm.
+> 
+> this could be set by default in a separate rebuild bot for tainted repos
+
+yes, but i was proposing to change the buildbot to allow such a package to be 
+built 4 times instead of 2, and not having srpm conflicts and so that a single 
+submission builds both at the same time.
+
+> >   * bootstrapping options? some way to have %defines that disable some
+> >   stuff for
+> > 
+> > bootstrapping (or even cyclic builddependencies in certain pacakages)
+> > 
+> > in short, the idea is to have:
+> > 1. X, that is simple, elegant and works for all cases
+> > 2. stuff happens
+> > 3. profit :-P
+> > 
+> > or to make it easier on packagers (and possibly reduce errors in wrong
+> > submission), so that just "mgarepo submit<package>" would automagically
+> > work correctly.
+> 
+> That only work if the packager sets the tags correctly...
+
+that is true, but if it's put into like the .spec file, it's kind of "there". 
+and in revision control.
+
+this looked usefull to me, but i can be wrong...
+