Re: RFD: CVS or Arch?

[Andreas Rottmann]

Andy Wingo <address@hidden> writes:

> Dunno if I indeed replied to this already, but I've been working a
> little on this front... 
>
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003, Andreas Rottmann wrote:
>
>> [...] I've started adopting arch for my work on guile-gobject, and now
>> have left the newbie state (at least I think so ;-)) and feel
>> confident enough with it to propose it as primary SCM for the upcoming
>> guile-gnome project.
>
> I have some practical questions about using it that I'll ask to you on
> the list, because they might be of wider interest once people get going.
>
>  1. I guess all files should have the same id's in each archive (i.e. my
>     gw-glib-spec.scm should be the same as yours). Where would the
>     canonical arch repo be held, so that we can do this properly? I
>     would like for this to be not on an individual's machine, but
>     somehow on savannah or gnu.org. And when this happens, how do
>     existing repos (mine and yours) change from the old tags to the new?
>
I should be. But since I made the mistake not to sue uuidgen IDs, but
the ones Arch auto-generates, we cannot use my archive as a base -
thus my proposal to start from scratch (see my other mail[0]).

[0] http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-gtk-general/2004-01/msg00015.html

>  2. I'm having problems with inventories. It could be because my tla is
>     old (1.0.6 -- I'll update as soon as I can, maybe this weekend),
>
You should really get a recent version. I use the daily built .debs
from Andrew Suffield [1]. The latest versions also support signed
archives, which would be a nice thing to have IMHO.

[1] http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-arch-users/2003-12/msg00436.html

>     but I have problems committing changes when I build in the
>     source tree.  I don't want to build elsewhere because to run
>     uninstalled, the bindings need things from both source and build
>     trees, and it's easier if they are the same. But it manifests
>     itself by complaining about each file that's not tagged, and
>     that's a lot. ATM if I want to commit, I have to make distclean
>     first, and that sucks.
>
I always use separate builddirs (especially since I started using arch
;-)). You can't really run in-tree anyway, since the gw-* shlibs need
to be installed, I think. 

>> * guile-gnome-common: arch category hosting common infrastructure,
>>   such as the autogen-support.sh stuff, common m4 macros and the like
>
> There really isn't all that much here. I would only break that apart if
> it's trivial and doesn't introduce too many problems.
>
>> I still have to play around a bit with arch meta-projects, but from
>> what I can see, they are perfectly suited for release managment.
>
> What a nightmare though! Imagine releasing 20 different tarballs. The
> feelings it stirs are not in my heart, they're in my stomach ;)
>
Hmm, I didn't say we should release 20 tarballs, but in the light of
the changing scope of the modules to be considered in the GNOME
developer platform and the implications wrt. the Bindings release set,
I think it would be nice to be flexible enough to be able to deliver
any configuration, going from a big tarball, containing all of
guile-gnome, to (not that we ever need to do this) having a separate
tarball for each upstream module.

Regards, Andy
-- 
Andreas Rottmann         | address@hidden      | address@hidden | address@hidden
http://yi.org/rotty      | GnuPG Key: http://yi.org/rotty/gpg.asc
Fingerprint              | DFB4 4EB4 78A4 5EEE 6219  F228 F92F CFC5 01FD 5B62

Any technology not indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
   -- Terry Pratchett