Subject: Re: bulk-build list
To: Frederick Bruckman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: None <email@example.com>
Date: 05/25/2001 15:31:32
On Fri, 25 May 2001, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2001, David Brownlee wrote:
> > One way to reduce the problem of binary packages on ftp.netbsd.org
> > built against different DEPENDS would be for developers to
> > perform bulk builds and upload the entire set to ftp.netbsd.org,
> > delete any existing packages for that arch/osrev, then move the
> > new set into place.
> The problem with that is: 1) It's never going to happen for m68k,
> pmax, or vax -- our best candidates for binary packages, in fact, and
well, speaking as one who has done this for pmax and vax..... i object!
now, it did take a really long time for the build to finish after the
release was done though....
> 2) in order to _use_ those packages, you practically have to throw
> away your CD, and blow away all your existing packages to upgrade
> anything. What we should be doing, instead, is building to a
> consistent baseline. Then, if do a "make package" in news/knews, and
> upload all the packages produced, it should work as well for anyone
> else as it does for me. The fly in the ointment is when we make
> changes to dependencies without bumping the version numbers, so that
> you have _completely_ _different_ packages with the same version
> number floating around.
i am now of the belief that we should only upload binary pkgs which were
built against the tagged pkgsrc for each release for this reason.