Packaging scripts for frameworks

[Albert Astals Cid]

El Diumenge, 29 de desembre de 2013, a les 20:05:20, David Faure va escriure:
> On Saturday 28 December 2013 17:34:35 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > I guess yes, was waiting for Torgny/other people opinion on them, since
> > they are not what we used to use (i.e. master and 4.11 are the "old"
> > ones). If you can have a look at the old ones and agree the 4.12 ones are
> > simpler, it'd be a good thing to help me merge them to master.
> 
> Yes, actually I tried the old ones first, since I had a master checkout and
> initially forgot your recommendation to use 4.12.
> 
> I agree that the 4.12 scripts are easier because they automate more things.
> 
> I just had to disable the call to pack_l10n.sh since there's no l10n for
> frameworks yet, apart from that it works great.
> 
> > > I have the patch below to commit, but apparently no permission to push,
> > > can I get that?
> > 
> > Ask it to someone that knows how to do that :D Sysadmin?
> 
> Yep, Ben was CC'ed in my previous mail :)
> 
> > Where do you want to push that master? or a kf5 branch?
> 
> 4.12, since that's what I was using, but with the idea of it getting merged
> to master at some point.

I think you should create a kf5.0 branch in the repo, that way you can kill 
the pack_l10n.sh and put the correct branches in the modules.git file, etc.

> 
> > The awesomeness of not using an existing clone for the archiving is that
> > you don't mess up with some local changes you may have had for the
> > tagging, the old scripts sorted that out by forcing you to have a
> > separate "clean" checkout, but even with that it has happened that we
> > fucked up something, that's why i went the git archive route. Tagging on
> > the other hand is kind of hard to make a mistake even if you use an
> > existing clone since it's just about tagging an existing hash.
> 
> Yep, exactly my thinking too.
> 
> > > [providing ZIP sources for Windows users]
> > 
> > If you don't want to stress the server much you can always untar and zip
> > it
> > locally.
> 
> Oh. Great idea, thanks.
> 
> What do you think about the doubled space requirements on the server though?
> Well, maybe that's a question for sysadmin too...
> 
> > > In any case - yes, these scripts make a lot of sense, we should work on
> > > automating the tagging, and I can help with that.
> > 
> > This is the silly script i have, it needs some work to integrate it better
> > with the exisitng stuff, but basically it does the job.
> 
> OK, I'll look at that when doing the actual release.
> 
> I guess it should not be triggered by the main pack_all.sh script though,
> since that's "safe to play with locally" while tagging (and pushing the
> tags) is for real, so I'll make it a separate tag_all.sh script.

Yep. Also we usually do the tarballing, give them to packagers and then only 
tag on release (which is a few days later) in case we need to redo the 
tarballs, so pack and tag should be different.

Cheers,
  Albert