Re: [general] Debian packages of M5

[Mark Hindess <ma...@googlemail.com>]

On 6 March 2008 at 8:59, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark Hindess wrote:
> > I've placed debian packages for M5 at:
> > 
> >   http://people.apache.org/~hindessm/debian/
> > 
> > They were created[0] with minimal, pristine copies of debian stable for
> > x86 and x86_64 and some very minor modifications[1] to the M5 federation
> > build.
> > 
> > I am certain that the runtime package dependencies aren't complete - in
> > particular the awt runtime dependencies where we would have to depend
> > on -dev packages which is a bad thing for a runtime - but the build
> > dependencies are because otherwise the packages would not build.
> 
> So are you asking people to test them yet or are you still working on them?

Sorry for the slow response.  I wasn't sure how much time I'd get to work
on them or if I'd make any real progress.  Now I know the answer.

> We have a placeholder on the downloads page for the packages once they 
> are ready for redistribution.

I'd prefer to get some feedback from others first if we are going to add
them to the download pages.  However, I spent the evening try to get tests
running and so tomorrow I'll probably be in a position to produce a set
with better dependencies - the same but with better metadata so testing
of the existing set will still be valid.

I've also now checked in the changes needed for building in the four
revisions r63440{4,5,7,9}.

-Mark.

> > Now I have the package build process down to something that is simple to
> > reproduce (script) I plan to try to achieve the same thing for testing
> > the packages in a similarly minimal, pristine environment so that, for
> > M6, I be certain the runtime dependencies are correct too.
> > 
> > -Mark.
> > 
> > [0] I'll document the process on the wiki (or perhaps as a script in svn)
> >     when I get a moment but it uses pdebuild with dancer's copy-on-write
> >     chroot build system - cowbuilder
> > 
> > [1] I'll clean these up and check them in shortly.  Most of the
> >     modifications were related to the fact that the packages are built
> >     using the source tar.gz (without .svn files) and building this
> >     way doesn't correctly set the svn.revision property mostly due to
> >     a simple typo.  Of course, strictly speaking all of our binary
> >     artifacts should be built this way.