Bazaar Daily Builds

[Vincent Ladeuil]

>>>>> Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer at samba.org> writes:

    > For a while I've been trying out the Launchpad daily builds on a bunch
    > of Bazaar packages. 

Yeah ! Well done !

I wanted to try that for a while myself :)

    > A PPA with these packages is here:

    > https://launchpad.net/~jelmer/+archive/bzr-dailies

<snip/>

    > One of the reasons I haven't done this as part of ~bzr is that I
    > wasn't sure if I would be able to keep these working and I don't
    > want to create any false expectations about them being around in
    > the future.

Well, the nightly PPA is way behind and I consider both the nightly and
you dailies as "tests" PPAs more than production ones. They are expected
to break and subscribing to them strongly implies that the subscriber
intends to fix them asap.

One difference with the niglty PPA is that you target maverick only
(soon to be replaced with natty or natty added ?).

    > These recipes all merge two or three branches:

    > * upstream branch (not for "native" packages such as bzr-builddeb)
    > * debian packaging branch (from
    > http://bzr.debian.org/pkg-bazaar/../unstable, but imported to Launchpad)
    > * A trivial branch which switches the Debian source format from "3.0
    > (quilt)" to "3.0 (native)". This is to work around bug
    > https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad-code/+bug/614768

I wonder where we can document this...

    > Since we use the Debian branch it is almost never necessary to touch
    > these recipes themselves. I was quite surprised by how well this works.
    > I receive a couple of success emails every night (for the projects for
    > which the trunk was updated) and an occasional build failure that I fix
    > by updating the Debian branch (which means less work the next time I
    > have to upload to Debian).

So this requires write access to these branches right ? 

    > There were a couple of bugs that I ran into that I've filed
    > reports for, but overall it's working quite well.

Can you post the URLs or even better tag the bugs with 'packaging' may be ?

    > I'm not sure what the current policy is in the Bazaar team as to
    > what PPA's are maintained.

The nightly was a grey area to me but as mentioned above I was (and am
even more now) keen to bring them back in the picture, especially if
they are at a point where they build succesfully.

The obligatory question at this point is: do they run the tests ?

This is a requirement for the Ubuntu SRUs and MRE anyway so we'd better
implement that in this PPA.

    > I certainly don't want to make the maintainance overhead worse by
    > adding more PPA's to maintain, but I'd be happy to change the
    > ownership of these recipes to ~bzr if that would be useful.

Thanks for that. I agree it is useful to know that the Ubuntu packages
build cleanly for every tip and when they don't we should be warned
ASAP.

If we can reach this point, then I'd say the maintenance overhead is
*lowered*.

So, +1 from me, with my RM hat, for transferring to ~bzr but I'd like to
hear from potential subscribers too and also from Max (who may or not
become a subscriber ;).

        Vincent