On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Stewart Smith wrote: > I'll investigate this first thing in the morning (it's getting late), > although it looks as though the tar.gz didn't fully download (yes, it's > really 135MB)
Looks like your tarball is named incorrectly (tar.gz instead of orig.tar.gz) and your website returns a HTTP 302 code (redirect) and some HTML for the orig.tar.gz URL rather than a 404. > I think there's some good ideas here that we can add to our CI > infrastructure. I don't think there's anything that would be considered > a blocker though. Indeed. > Yep, we typically do this. We use a key for the company rather than our > individual ones for our current repositories. Is this an acceptable > approach for packages going into Debian? Or should we just have the few > individuals sign it if they're involved? It is a reasonable approach for upstream tarballs. Uploads to Debian need to be signed by one of the keys in the developer keyring or a subkey of one of those keys. > We'd need to depend on very specific 5.1, 5.5 and 5.6 versions of both > MySQL and Percona Server (which isn't yet packaged) and we'd also have > to patch it. > > Our short/medium term plan is to do away with having multiple server > source trees and binaries. We instead plan to just make a modified MySQL > branch where we just include the needed (modified) source. In an ideal > world the needed code would be buildable as a library and we'd get the > needed patches upstream. It is not an ideal world however :( I see, maybe you have chosen the way of least pain. > I'm not really attached either way... It appears that it may not be > worth having it. I'll defer to the experts on this one. Maybe ask your userbase if they need it? > I'll bring it up there. We would see that as simply a patch that's > needed for that version to be included in that Os and thus not an issue. The danger is if that approach to interpretation if the policy were to change. > It's certainly something we may be interested at looking at... I guess > we'll see what the buildds say :) > > We do have a test suite. It does (of course) depend on having server > binaries around to run backup and restore with. Our CI infrastructure > currently uses just binary tarballs of various server versions, but this > probably isn't ideal for Debain so we'll have to come up with another > solution. One thing to consider is that (like MySQL) running the test > suite takes a non-trivial amount of time. Please do enable the test suite for Debian builds and run them with the binaries built during the build process. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caktje6f0cn0zryqmdrlzhiqobh2cabzjdzqcww1xdd0e9zh...@mail.gmail.com
