* Mike Hommey (m...@glandium.org) [110430 17:57]: > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 02:18:06PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > * Mike Hommey (m...@glandium.org) [110430 13:28]: > > > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 01:06:57PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > > * Mike Hommey (m...@glandium.org) [110430 12:16]: > > > > > That being said, it would be really helpful to be able to get buildds > > > > > to build the mozilla.d.n packages... > > > > > > > > Would it work to build the packages in unstable? If so, why not > > > > uploading them to experimental and re-branding them in mozilla.d.n? > > > > > > I'm not sure to understand what you are suggesting. > > > > > > The question is how could we get the packages built so that we don't > > need to setup yet another buildd suite (or more general, I want to > > avoid setting one suite per package). Of course, ppa would come to > > rescue here, and it's really only a question of "someone would need to > > write the code". > > > > I would propose the following for now: > > > > 1. For unstable users, upload the packages to experimental, and > > extract them from there once they are built. > > 2. For testing users, do the same (but only take the packages if they > > have dependencies fullfilable in testing) > > 3. For stable and oldstalbe users, upload the packages to bpo, and > > extract them from there. > > > > All that can (and should) be scripted of course. > > Ah, so that's an hypothetical case, involving minimal changes to the > current buildd system. But it currently isn't possible.
Why not? Or - what is the blocker? (If there is some easily removable, I'm happy to remove it.) Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110430183026.gx15...@mails.so.argh.org
