This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [RFC] ready for cygport to default to gcc4?
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 12:49:05AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>> I was wondering what percentage of the repository is sufficiently
>> g-b-s-tastic or cygport-ified to be able to more-or-less automatedly
>> rebuild.
>
> What does "automatically rebuilt" mean? Are you saying that one person
> would rebuild everything?
No, a _script_ would rebuild everything, or as much of it can be rebuilt by
grepping a list of source tarballs out of setup.ini and programatically
downloading and unpacking them followed by running either "cygport <.cygport
name> all" or "<g-b-s-variant name>.sh all". (Modulo whatever minor
adjustments e.g. build 'almostall' rather than 'all' so that we can run the
check target as well).
I can't imagine a package maintainer being
> comfortable with that. I know I wouldn't be.
Well, it's your right to object. I just noticed that one of the links that
came up during the previous do-we-don't-we-flag-day thread was to an article
describing how one of the big distros handled a similar flag day, and it
sounded very much to me like they were running an auto-build server for the
whole distro that maintainers just uploaded source package files to. A bit
like the cygwin-ports repository. Ah, here it is:
"Debian library renaming due to changed libstdc++ configuration"
http://lwn.net/Articles/160330/
and that leads me to this article about the Debian "Autobuilder Network":
http://www.debian.org/devel/buildd/
Would you be any more comfortable if the suggestion was that we only
autorebuilt packages for which the maintainers were seriously AWOL?
> And, I can't imagine anyone volunteering to rebuild scores of packages.
No; if we decide to try this, it's a machine's work, not a human's!
cheers,
DaveK