On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 22:20 +0100, Tim Retout wrote: > On 10 September 2010 13:00, James Page <james.p...@canonical.com> wrote: > > Has there been any further progress on working towards packaging Hudson > > for Debian? > > Hi James,
Hi Tim > > I last looked at hudson at DebConf, and got hung up on some licensing > issues for the build dependencies. I've not looked at licensing of dependencies yet; any information that you have would be interesting to review. > > I'd welcome any help/ideas you can offer - I'm still making use of > hudson at work, but obviously want to get it properly packaged. I'm > not sure what the best approach is at this point - I think getting it > all to build from source is quite an important feature. Build from source would be a great objective, but does not look that achievable; I have concerns re complexity of packaging - I particularly enjoyed the list of dependencies and the patching applied to them :-). I also think that the frequency of releases could also be hard to keep up with; I've been doing some work automating the Ubuntu Server ISO testing process over the last two weeks using Hudson and I've been upgraded at least twice! If we take this approach, we also need to consider how we package plugins as well - these are downloaded and installed directly from within the tool so won't conform to policy that well. I have started to document my initial work/thoughts here https://wiki.ubuntu.com/JavaTeam/HudsonDependencies I'm aiming to take a Feature Spec for Ubuntu to UDS-N in October as I know that Hudson is being used by a number of teams on the project and that it would make a great addition to both Debian and Ubuntu in the long term. If the build from source objective is not achievable, what are the options for Debian in terms of binary packaging? Regards James -- James Page Software Engineer, Ubuntu Server Team -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
