[maemo-developers] Rebuild all chinook source packages on autobuilder

[From: Ed Bartosh]

On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 17:48 +0100, ext Graham Cobb wrote:
> On Monday 16 June 2008 16:53:41 Fred wrote:
> > Because I changed my packages so that they build with auto-builder
> > (mainly declare hildon-dev dependencies) and you tried to build the
> > version I uploaded to extras before that ...
> 
> Same with all the GPE packages.  The GPE packages in extras-devel have all 
> been built successfully with the autobuilder.  As they are exactly the same 
> software as the extras versions I have not bothered to promote them to 
> extras.
> 
How come they're the same? If you changed something you should be at
least increasing revisions of your packages, shouldn't you?

> Where packages exist in both extras and extras-devel, please use the packages 
> from extras-devel for your building.
Well, extras-devel is for development packages, AFAIK, they're not ready to be used by
users. We're going to rebuild packages from extras and then rebuld them
for Diablo to give users opportunity to use extras on their tablets.
Rebuilding extras-devel may be a good idea, but I propose to concentrate
on extras first. Than we can rebuild extras-devel if developers want it.

> I plan on having new GPE packages in extras-devel (built using the 
> autobuilder, of course) in a few weeks.  Once these have been tested for a 
> while they will eventually be promoted into extras but I don't intend to 
> touch the versions in extras until then.
>
I'd suggest to increase revisions for those packages, which included
into the build, upload them to autobuilder and promote to extras
use 'request rebuild' option on the rebuild page. They will be included
into the next build round.

> Note: some of the GPE packages have not built for i386.  This is because they 
> are dependent on libsoup which is not available in extras or extras-devel for 
> i386 or as a source package.  I have not had time to re-port it and all its 
> dependencies in order to submit the source packages.
> 
So, what's your suggestion? Live it as it is or find time for a fix?
BTW, if you only want your packages built for armel, you can put 'armel'
in the 'Architecture:' field of your debian/control. Autobuilder is
smart enough and your packages will be built only for armel.