Re: Maintainers should announce build-related changes in their modules

[Emmanuele Bassi <ebassi gmail com>]

On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 23:49, Michael Gratton <mike vee net> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Sep, 2019 at 22:39, Philip Withnall <philip tecnocode co uk>
wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-09-12 at 19:14 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Sep, 2019 at 19:08, Philip Withnall
>> <philip tecnocode co uk> wrote:
>>> That sounds like something people are going to forget to do. Would
>>> it be possible to use computers to automate this?
>>
>> It's software: anything is possible.
>>
>> As to whether we can automate this **right now**, the answer is: no.

It's a shame that build deps can't be picked up automatically from the
meson build config, where it's already specified.

What about requiring modules include a buildstream config fragment with
a well-known name in their repos, much like how DOAP files are
required, which then gets pulled in by the release team's CI?

If maintainers want to be responsible for their own module's BuildStream recipe, by all means: submit MRs to gnome-build-meta.

Adding a BuildStream recipe in your repo doesn't solve anything, though.

 1. BuildStream is an implementation detail of how we build the GNOME SDK and releases

 2. Applications already have their own build system, a CI configuration, and a flatpak builder manifest; adding yet another place, with a completely different syntax and semantics where your dependencies are listed is a recipe for maintainers just not doing this work

 3. GNOME releases are built out of gnome-build-meta; distributing the BuildStream recipes isn't going to fix broken builds in gnome-build-meta

Let's not overengineer ourselves out of sending an email.

Ciao,

 Emmanuele.

--

https://www.bassi.io
[@] ebassi [@gmail.com]