Re: make distcheck in tinderbox [was Re: make check failures- gnome-vfs, e-d-s, at-spi]

[Alan Horkan <horkana maths tcd ie>]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Ikke wrote:

> Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 21:42:09 +0200
> From: Ikke <eikke eikke com>
> To: Behdad Esfahbod <behdad cs toronto edu>
> Cc: Luis Villa <luis villa gmail com>, desktop-devel-list gnome org
> Subject: Re: make distcheck in tinderbox [was Re: make check failures-
>     gnome-vfs, e-d-s, at-spi]
>
> On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 15:29 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> > One way to go about is to require all involved modules to have an
> > RPM .spec file, and jhbuild can be instructed to build and
> > install RPMs, but most probably this will not be accepted
> > practice in GNOME.  Or am I wrong?

> Seriously, then I want ebuilds provided for every package too.
>
> Nah, just kidding. Personally I don't think this is a good idea, as it
> would give one distribution a "higher" state than others, which is not
> what we want (I guess?)

Supporting Autopackage wouldn't adversely affect or favour any
particularly distribution and it would in fact produce packages widely
usable by a whole variety of distributions.  There is no Autopackage based
distribution yet (nor is there likely to be).

I think there is some benefit to having developers in control of their
packages because they sure aren't going to want to have to maintain
mulitple different RPMs and they would insist on a greater level of
compatibility from RPM bases distributions.

A Gnome LiveCD full of Autopackages could be very interesting.

(but this is all theoretical and it would require developers to create the
necessary autopackage specifications which mostly do not exist yet so I'll
say no more)

Sincerely

Alan Horkan
http://advogato.org/person/AlanHorkan/