[Buildbot-devel] Splitting slave from master (downstream packaging)

Charles Lepple clepple at gmail.com
Thu Jun 17 12:43:29 UTC 2010

On Jun 17, 2010, at 7:55 AM, A.T.Hofkamp wrote:

> Charles Lepple wrote:
>> Along the lines of what Itamar mentioned, would it make sense for a
>> "buildbot" distro package to depend on "buildbot-slave"?
> If you don't need the contents of buildbot-slave to run a master,  
> I'd not make such a connection, as
>  the dependency can be interpreted as 'you need to have a slave at  
> the same machine'.

It could be interpreted that way, but you would need to actually run  
the setup command to create the slave, and then start it. I don't  
think that setting up masters and slaves happens as often as upgrading.

>> I'm thinking mainly about people who are upgrading from 0.8.0, who
>> will be surprised by the missing slave functionality.
> So when are they not surprised enough any more to make the split?

Not sure I see where you are going with that.

> To make it clear to everyone, you could also have a buildbot-master  
> package.
> (And perhaps that is the intention, I did not entirely follow the  
> discussion.)
> For backward compability, you could have a 'buildbot' that combines  
> both, but I would not even do
> that, if you find 'buildbot' missing, it is not hard to find  
> 'buildbot-master' and 'buildbot-slave'
> imho.

I was initially thinking about following the names for the tarballs,  
but you have a point with the transitional 'buildbot' package that  
depends on -master and -slave.

I think I'll go down that path for now, since it is the easiest way to  
notify a user who is upgrading. I can also mark the 'buildbot'  
transitional package as deprecated ('obsolete' is the Fink term) so  
that it will be deleted when a user runs the 'obsolete packages  
cleanup' command.

More information about the devel mailing list