RFC: Release Management Going Forward
nicolas.alvarez at gmail.com
Thu Jun 23 03:58:02 CEST 2011
Rex Dieter wrote:
> On 06/21/2011 06:41 AM, Will Stephenson wrote:
>>>> So you want the fine grained tarballs, if I understand correctly ?
>>> Just looking at how the openSUSE buildservice is set up, they seem to
>>> use fine-grained tarballs as well, although I don't know how closely
>>> those match to the breakdown you are using.
>> We're using them, and the consensus among the team so far is that they
>> allow faster builds (broader dependency tree instead of deeper) and
>> isolate failures better. These are the kde.org tarballs; is anyone using
>> their own??
> Fwiw, in fedora, we hacked the 4.6.80 kde.org tarballs and build-process
> to be as-close-to-monolithic as possible.
I had to do many changes to the buildsystem of every kdeedu app in 4.6 to
let them build both monolithic and split. If you need to continue with a
monolithic build, (and preferably if fedora is not the *only* distro that
needs it), I'm willing to forward-port the changes to the master branch.
However, IMHO, KDE shouldn't officially release both sets of tarballs. That
would be a mess. When someone has a build problem, we'd have to ask not only
what version number he has but also if he has monolithic or split. If you
need to build $somekdemodule monolithic, you should put the split tarball
contents back together yourself.
More information about the release-team