[Buildbot-devel] Spec file, service script and info patch

[Bailey, Darragh]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: djmitche at gmail.com [mailto:djmitche at gmail.com] On 
> Behalf Of Dustin J. Mitchell
> Sent: 08 April 2010 01:37
> To: Armstrong, Gareth; Bailey, Darragh; Gianluca Sforna
> Cc: buildbot-devel at lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Buildbot-devel] Spec file, service script and info patch
> 
> Holy cow, that's a lot of attachments.
> 
> As a project, how do you all suggest we handle this?  In Amanda, we
> have a packaging/ subdirectory in version control that contains the
> relevant source for debs, rpms, etc.  Is that appropriate for
> Buildbot?  Would it be appropriate for us to use the metabuildbot to
> make "unofficial" RPMs, or should we wait for the various distros to
> catch up to each release (which they seem to have been very good
> about!)?
> 
> Or would it be better to expand the Trac wiki to include links to
> these files for interested parties to download and tweak to their
> needs?
> 
> Open to suggestions..
> Dustin

I think Gareth and myself should be able to merge most of the differences between our specfiles :-) .


There are some that require a little more thought:
In the spec file I send on, there is some legacy behaviour from having to work with mulitple python versions on the same system. So I generally added the ability to build a package with the python version embedded in the package name.
i.e. python2.3-buildbot or python2.4-buildbot instead of python-buildbot with .el4 or .el5 appended to the release field.

This stems from using buildbot with RHAS 2.1 where python 2.2 was the system default and I rebuilt a python 2.3 package and installed it side by side in order to avoid to many issues with trying to get twisted + buildbot to work with python < 2.3.

But is this worth keeping going forward? I'm beginning to side with the idea that if someone else needs this behaviour, as long as the spec file doesn't make it to hard to add, then it should be dropped in the merged version of the spec file to being included with the project.

Any thoughts regarding this?


Service related files: 
Do you want to include these? Currently I only use them on RHEL4 & 5. The inclusion of these files contain most of the remaining differences in the spec files.


Remaining differences are around enabling the tests. I like how Gareth added the ability that if additional SCM tests were requested to be run, then additional BuildRequires lines were added. Would it be useful to flesh these out more? Either individual '--with's or if someone specifies something like '--with test_all_scms', that the rpm spec file include BuildRequires for all SCM's that buildbot can currently work with?


--
Regards,
Darragh Bailey

Systems Software Engineer
Hewlett Packard Galway Ltd.

Postal Address:    Hewlett Packard Galway Limited, Ballybrit Business Park, Galway
Registered Office: Hewlett Packard Galway Limited, 63-74 Sir John Rogerson's Quay Dublin 2
Registered Number: 361933