Fw: [cgl_discussion] Sources from each build...
tariq.shureih at intel.com
Tue Sep 24 13:47:24 PDT 2002
Just to clarify how things took place.
We, integration, changed the build output to binary tar archives because
RPMs were not accepted -- for obvious reasons I agree with.
What I understood from Rusty is that we need to post the binary tar archives
NOT source since people, in osdl or outside, can access source via anonymous
We maintained the RPM output for the validation and ABAT structure in place.
Now, it's a matter of a small script change to start posting source tar
archives, but for my own personal curiosity, why do we want to do that?
Let me elaborate:
What is the purpose of publishing the build output?
Is it for specific audience such as validation? Is it for open-source
community to have access to what we do?
Answering that question will answer the proper method to post the build
Opinions are my own and do NOT
represent those of Intel Corporation.
From: Khalid Aziz [mailto:khalid at fc.hp.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 1:40 PM
To: Jeremy A. Puhlman; cgl_discussion at osdl.org
Subject: Re: Fw: [cgl_discussion] Sources from each build...
Khalid Aziz wrote:
> As for rpm packages, they indeed are distro specific. An RPM package for
> Redhat 7.3 is very unlikely to install on a Mandrake 8.2. IMO, we should
> not build rpm or any other packages.
Before people get ruffled up about it :)
What I am trying to say is we should not be putting up binaries on the
build page. We still have to build binaries/packages for validation
subgroup, but that is strictly internal. This is just my opinion (not as
in not HP's opinion, but as in it is an opinion, not a decree).
Khalid Aziz Linux Systems Division
khalid at fc.hp.com Fort Collins, CO
"The Linux kernel is subject to relentless development"
- Alessandro Rubini
cgl_discussion mailing list
cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
More information about the cgl_discussion