Re: [RFC] Initial Proposal for Packaged Staging Revamp (was [RFC] Make some big changes right after next stable)

[Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 03-03-10 18:09, Chris Larson wrote:

> To summarize, I propose the creation of an archive/package which acts as the
> primary artifact to come out of the build of a recipe. 

That sounds like a good way to do packaged-staging without making my
head explode :)

[snip]

> While I haven't fully worked out the logistics of the implementation of
> this, I did, in the past, create a prototype of a "private staging areas"
> implementation which also implemented this primary archive as a side effect,
> and utilized it for the prototype.  Does anyone have any thoughts on this,
> ideas for improvement, arguments either for or against a pstage revamp, or
> alternative ideas for a revamp?  I'd love to hear what people think about
> this possibility.

I think the 'private staging' approach is the way to go, it makes the
build determistic instead of "might pick up extras from staging". And I
think it will also cure the mysterious "every python recipe breaks when
some, yet unknown, recipe is built"

regards,

Koen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFLjpm/MkyGM64RGpERAhjkAKCOyTOeYoGo5RFKTOyrGcIgfAqO1gCeMxhs
r3gKpDutUphnVfdOpMZm8as=
=wRtB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----