[puppy-devel] Re: SVN for usr_devx.sfs enhancements?

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, "Fran Boon" <flavour@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:

> Jonathan Marsden wrote:
>> At this point, I think we'll mostly be packaging existing sources,
>> not editing them.  How do you see SVN or CVS being used in this kind
>> of a setup?  I'm expecting more of a little database of packages with
>> the URL to a canonical source code tarball, and the parameters needed
>> to build it under Puppy, and (later) to package it into "user" and
>> "devel" pieces if necessary.  Plus various scripts that use this data
>> to grab tarballs and package them and run tests against the results.
>> I'm open to other approaches, though.  We could keep the set of
>> scripts under shared version control -- is that what you had in mind?

> SVN can be used to store a whole filesystem, which is what
> usr_devx.sfs is. We can pre-populate with the current usr_devx.sfs &
> then incrementally patch it - starting with openssl & libexif headers.

How does this help the project?  Surely the developers need to be
concerned with tracking changes to their tools, and to sofware in the
form they prefer to work with it (sources).  Tracking changes piece by
piece in the final (mostly binary) resulting filesystem doesn't seem
to me to add much value, unless the project is about copying and
manipulating binaries... which is what we are trying to get *away*
from here :-)

> We should then have another repository for your compiling & packaging
> scripts, which I think definitely do need to split out into user &
> devel lumps. User goes into the main distro, devel goes into
> usr_devs.sfs.

Oh, I agree that division is going to be needed-- but the first stage is
to get working packages built from source, and test them.  Deciding
which
chunks of the built packages are "devel" or otherwise can wait a while.
Milestone 1 does not need this division of its output.  And even then it
really just needs the "user" partion to be thrown away, so we can build
the alternate devx.sfs filesystem from its packages.  Only at Milestone
4 do we need to think about packaging non-developer binaries.  And
that's a way off.

If you think having a version-control system for the devx.sfs filesystem
is going to be useful, we can do it... but can you please explain how
version control on the compiled binaries will help us get the job done?
I think it's the wrong place in the toolchain to be applying version
control, myself.

Jonathan
-- 
  Jonathan Marsden
  jmarsden@xxxxxxxxxxx

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - The way an email service should be

Other related posts: