On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 11:28:47PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote: > Adam Borowski wrote: > > > Thus, what would you guys say about a new distribution, "scratch"? It would > > be a kind of extra-experimental that doesn't put its build results anywhere > > persistent. Throwing away built .debs would be ok, keeping just logs. > > Perhaps I'm missing something but would introducing more architectures > to the salsa.debian.org continuous integrations runners not serve > mostly the same purpose?
Yeah, with the "more architectures" being the key point. I haven't used salsa CI, but eg. Reproducible Builds have four archs: amd64, arm64, armhf, i386. I have machines that can run these without software emulation literally at hand's reach -- from each of three places I typically code at. That's not the case for any other arch, including a bunch of release ones. And I have only a sharply limited amount of damn to give for eg. mipsel. It's somehow still a release arch, thus as a DD I'm still supposed to at least try to port to it, but there's only so many tuits I, and other maintainers, have -- and for this reason I'd prefer porting to be convenient. > The developer's workflow would simply be to > push a commit and it would be built and tested automatically. Not every commit is worth testing, especially on bigger packages. I don't want to cause unnecessary drain on already limited resources (crap architectures have slow buildds). > (I would concede that this would essentially require adopting a salsa > and Git-based packaging scheme, however.) Or to develop elsewhere, and push to Salsa just to trigger CI. Meow! -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Don't be racist. White, amber or black, all beers should ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ be judged based solely on their merits. Heck, even if ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ occasionally a cider applies for a beer's job, why not? ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ On the other hand, corpo lager is not a race.
