openSUSE packagers' take on the 3 month release cycle

[Martin Gräßlin]

On Tuesday 09 July 2013 06:33:21 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 09, 2013 12:05:30 PM Àlex Fiestas wrote:
> > On Monday 08 July 2013 22:01:29 Andrea Scarpino wrote:
> > > We don't just run a sed rule on each spec (pkgbuild, in my case) file.
> > > We
> > > check for new dependencies (resp. dependencies not needed anymore), new
> > > modules (resp. modules not part of the SC anymore), build failure,
> > > etc...
> > 
> > Can't we do something so you don't have to hunt this down but instead just
> > read a list?
> > 
> > For build time dependencies, we could do something by looking for
> > find_package, and for runtime dependencies we should figure something out.
> > 
> > Our projects are a mess when it comes to runtime dependencies, why don't
> > we
> > fix that for example?
> 
> How would a run time only dependency be expressed?  I've seen some people
> put them in find_package, which is wrong and then we end up having to patch
> it away.
> 
> For build-time dependencies, particularly determining minimum version
> requirements, I end up reading CMakeLists.txt in my favorite editor.  That's
> not ideal either.
what about having this information available in a standardized format, e.g. a 
dependencies.xml?

Cheers
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20130709/b0dda450/attachment.sig>