On 9 October 2014 10:42, Mike Gabriel <mike.gabr...@das-netzwerkteam.de> wrote: > Hi Dimitri, > > > On Do 09 Okt 2014 11:18:30 CEST, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > >> On 9 October 2014 08:43, Mike Gabriel <mike.gabr...@das-netzwerkteam.de> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Dimitri, >>> >>> >>> On Do 09 Okt 2014 08:45:17 CEST, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: >>> >>>> Hey, >>>> >>>> On 9 October 2014 05:21, Mike Gabriel <mike.gabr...@das-netzwerkteam.de> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Package: wnpp >>>>> Severity: wishlist >>>>> Owner: Mike Gabriel <mike.gabr...@das-netzwerkteam.de> >>>>> >>>>> * Package name : obs-build >>>>> Version : Git snapshot (every commit is a release) >>>>> Upstream Author : Michael Schroeder (https://github.com/mlschroe) >>>>> * URL : https://github.com/openSUSE/obs-build >>>>> * License : GPL >>>>> Programming Lang: Perl >>>>> Description : Build DEB/RPM packages for various distributions >>>>> inside a chroot >>>>> >>>>> OBS Build creates chroots and builds DEB/RPM packages for various >>>>> Linux distributions. In Debian, this package fills a gap: it allows >>>>> one >>>>> to >>>>> build packages for the openSUSE/SLES distributions on Debian system. >>>>> . >>>>> Its only task is to reliably populate a chroot and attempt to build >>>>> a package in that chroot. It is used by the Open Build System provided >>>>> by SUSE, but can also be use as a standalone tool. >>>>> . >>>>> Optionally, builds can take place in KVM or XEN instance. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I think we had a mid-air collision: >>>> https://ftp-master.debian.org/new/obs-build_20140918-1.html >>>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=762949 >>>> >>>> I'm happy to co-maintain this package. >>> >>> >>> >>> Yeah. I saw Adams mail early this morning. >>> >>> I have the package nearly ready... Do you have anything packaged, yet? Or >>> shall I just add you to Uploaders: (with what mail address)? >>> >>> I plan to push the packaging Git to collab-maint (or have you already >>> provided a packaging repo there?) >>> >> >> It's in the new queue. > > > Ah... ok... (damn that I did not notice...). > >> I use a combination of git-dpm & dgit. Which although useful, has >> quilt noise committed as patches. (Maybe I should use stand-alone >> branch for dgit/quilt noise). >> >> You should be able to fetch it with: >> $ dgit clone obs-build >> >> Or I've now pushed a "normal" git master branch thus it's >> visiable/clonable with git itself as well: >> http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/dgit-repos/repos/obs-build.git/ > > > Ok. Thanks. Just did some reading of the debian/ folder. > > I also pushed my latest changes to collab-maint/obs-build.git so you can > introspect them. > >> In terms of patches, I have: >> Use obs-build namespace, similar to your patch. >> >> http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/dgit-repos/repos/obs-build.git/tree/debian/patches/0001-Use-obs-build-in-locations-and-executable-names-inst.patch > > >> I fixed & submitted upstream a bug with createzypp repository script. >> >> http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/dgit-repos/repos/obs-build.git/tree/debian/patches/0002-Fix-Build-Zypp-parsecfg-expected-full-config-file-na.patch > > > >> I do not move project configurations to /etc, as I don't think that's >> right. Released distribution configurations should be frozen, to have >> reproducible builds locally. > > > Ok. That sounds reasonable. > >> Custom/non-upstream distro configs should either be patched/applied in >> the Debian package, packaged separately and install into same config >> location, or passed to obs-build via command-line option. >> We really don't want people to modify build configuration files for >> volatile distribution (e.g. Factory, Rawhide, Sid, etc) and then never >> get upgraded when those change, due to how config-files are handled. > > > Ok. Agreeing on that. > >> Maybe it makes sense to patch obs to support multiple locations? E.g. >> /etc/obs-build/configs and /usr/lib/obs-build/configs? > > > That surely is an option. > > What concerns me most about your upload is the version number. >
Yeah, I am aware of the crazy version numbering. So I based my version numbers, on the version numbers that are published and used by openSUSE itself in the openSUSE:Tools repository. Which is where they package up daily git snapshot when a "release" happens. https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/openSUSE:Tools/build So At the moment, I have exact same version as the upstream "releases" are in the openSUSE:Tools repository. Why should version numbers diverge from what's used in openSUSE and upstream? Ich kann nur ein bistchen Deutsch sprechen.... I did request tags for matching builds to be pushed into the repository, but it doesn't look like github issues are being monitored: https://github.com/openSUSE/obs-build/issues/133 > I understand that there are tags on the openSUSE/obs-build.git. I used them > as well till yesterday. However, I had an intensive chat with one of the > upstream authors (Michael Schroeder, from SUSE) yesterday. Unfortunately in > German, so copy+pasting makes no sense here. > > About the tags on the Git he said: those tags are actually obs-server tags > (not obs-build). The obs-server devs tagged obs-build with obs-server > versions, so that they know what obs-build version / Git commit hash was > used with what obs-server version. > > About obs-build, he said: every commit is a release. So basically, we should > use the version date. With upstream I came to the conclustion that the best > version number would be > 0~git<date>.<build-on-that-day>.<commit-hash>-<debrevision>. > > So, the question is, if you are open do re-upload obs-build. If so, we > should merge our packaging efforts (I think) and get several other things > going (e.g. the initvm.c tool, tests, etc.). > > Also, I could not really find that all files are licensed GPL-2+. I just > asked upstream to do that today [1]. > I went by the license information used by OBS packagers in openSUSE:Tools repository which states GPL-2+. More explicit licensing info would be appreciated in the repository itself. Thanks for asking and getting that changed. Do i need to join irc and ping adrian to get this reviewed/merged https://github.com/openSUSE/obs-build/pull/136 ? > Actually, some files [2] are licensed as GPL-3+, so your copyright file is No, it got changed to "2 or 3", but no later. Given that some other files are GPL-2-only, it seems like overall it's GPL-2-only. > not up-to-date anymore for a latest Git snapshot (which is irrelevant for > code older than today's snapshot, of course). > > Mike > > [1] > https://github.com/openSUSE/obs-build/commit/fbb353690da2e4eeca0661e0e8f5f1141bee41ce > [2] > https://github.com/openSUSE/obs-build/commit/dcfcf896cd913c8f2c067ef97ce5176a5358e5d0 > -- Regards, Dimitri. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/canbhluj_mmqo_nqhiacvz4xrtdgd3szjqqx2_toic2ryjp4...@mail.gmail.com
