On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 03:22:18 +0100
Lennart Poettering <mzerqung@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Well, I fully acknowledge that haveing the same sources for the
> distros should not imply to have the same binaries. However, that's
> really something to solve on the build scripts level. Or in other
> words, as soon as I type "fedpkg build" my package should be built on
> all newer distributions too (except of course there's an explicit
> branch for that).
Except thats almost never what you want. ;)
To use systemd as an example:
% bodhi -L systemd
f16-updates systemd-37-25.fc16
f16-updates-candidate systemd-37-25.fc16
f16-updates-testing systemd-37-25.fc16
f17-updates-candidate systemd-44-22.fc17
f17-updates-testing systemd-44-23.fc17
f17-updates systemd-44-23.fc17
f18-updates-testing systemd-195-15.fc18
f18-updates systemd-197-1.fc18.1
f18-updates-candidate systemd-195-14.fc18
The common case here in f16 and f17 (and often f18, but not right now
since you are pushing 197 there too) is that you only want to build for
the branch you want to build for.
The branched/rawhide case is the exception that happens for 1/2 or so
of the time, and only affects those two branches.
> For a very static package this would even allow people to never bother
> with branching again. You could stay forever on your old branch, and
> with a single "fedpkg" built you could update the three supported
> distros all at once.
There's a lot of logistical issues with that. I understand where you
are coming from conceptually, but we don't have anything that would
behave like that right now, nor do I think we have people interested in
redoing all of our setup for this.
kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
