[arch-releng] Reviving archiso releases?
Hi, as I plan a new iso for next week, I was wondering if we should create tags for archiso so I can create an actual package to be put into the repos. This would simplify the building process and reduces some possible issues from e.g. an inconsistent archiso install. (e.g. if you just run make install old files wont get removed from the root-image directory. Imho the more we can automate and standardize here the better. I guess the easiest way would be to use a versioning scheme like in arch-install scripts (every tag increments the version by one) or a date based one (e.g. 20120728). We could just tag a new release a few days before the new iso gets created and update the package. So, what do you think about this? Greetings, Pierre -- Pierre Schmitz, https://pierre-schmitz.com
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Pierre Schmitz
as I plan a new iso for next week, I was wondering if we should create tags for archiso so I can create an actual package to be put into the repos. This would simplify the building process and reduces some possible issues from e.g. an inconsistent archiso install. (e.g. if you just run make install old files wont get removed from the root-image directory. Imho the more we can automate and standardize here the better.
Sounds great.
I guess the easiest way would be to use a versioning scheme like in arch-install scripts (every tag increments the version by one) or a date based one (e.g. 20120728). We could just tag a new release a few days before the new iso gets created and update the package.
I prefer just an increasing counter, but don't see it as hugely important. -t
On 07/27/2012 09:49 PM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
Hi,
as I plan a new iso for next week, I was wondering if we should create tags for archiso so I can create an actual package to be put into the repos. This would simplify the building process and reduces some possible issues from e.g. an inconsistent archiso install. (e.g. if you just run make install old files wont get removed from the root-image directory. Imho the more we can automate and standardize here the better.
I guess the easiest way would be to use a versioning scheme like in arch-install scripts (every tag increments the version by one) or a date based one (e.g. 20120728). We could just tag a new release a few days before the new iso gets created and update the package.
So, what do you think about this?
Greetings,
Pierre
Oh yes, I want to do this since long time :) -- Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi \cos^2\alpha + \sin^2\alpha = 1
Am 28.07.2012 03:26, schrieb Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi:
On 07/27/2012 09:49 PM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
Hi,
as I plan a new iso for next week, I was wondering if we should create tags for archiso so I can create an actual package to be put into the repos. This would simplify the building process and reduces some possible issues from e.g. an inconsistent archiso install. (e.g. if you just run make install old files wont get removed from the root-image directory. Imho the more we can automate and standardize here the better.
I guess the easiest way would be to use a versioning scheme like in arch-install scripts (every tag increments the version by one) or a date based one (e.g. 20120728). We could just tag a new release a few days before the new iso gets created and update the package.
So, what do you think about this?
Greetings,
Pierre
Oh yes, I want to do this since long time :)
Great. To make things easier we could add a version variable and a dist function to the Makefile similar to this: https://github.com/falconindy/arch-install-scripts/blob/master/Makefile -- Pierre Schmitz, https://pierre-schmitz.com
Am 28.07.2012 03:26, schrieb Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi:
On 07/27/2012 09:49 PM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
Hi,
as I plan a new iso for next week, I was wondering if we should create tags for archiso so I can create an actual package to be put into the repos. This would simplify the building process and reduces some possible issues from e.g. an inconsistent archiso install. (e.g. if you just run make install old files wont get removed from the root-image directory. Imho the more we can automate and standardize here the better.
I guess the easiest way would be to use a versioning scheme like in arch-install scripts (every tag increments the version by one) or a date based one (e.g. 20120728). We could just tag a new release a few days before the new iso gets created and update the package.
So, what do you think about this?
Greetings,
Pierre
Oh yes, I want to do this since long time :)
So, as I'd like to create a new iso this week it would be good to have archiso packaged before. Did you push the recent changes into a non-public repo somewhere? I could also push patches directly to projects.archlinux.org (after they are discussed) to make your life easier. Greetings, Pierre -- Pierre Schmitz, https://pierre-schmitz.com
On 07/30/2012 07:19 AM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
On 07/27/2012 09:49 PM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
Hi,
as I plan a new iso for next week, I was wondering if we should create tags for archiso so I can create an actual package to be put into the repos. This would simplify the building process and reduces some possible issues from e.g. an inconsistent archiso install. (e.g. if you just run make install old files wont get removed from the root-image directory. Imho the more we can automate and standardize here the better.
I guess the easiest way would be to use a versioning scheme like in arch-install scripts (every tag increments the version by one) or a date based one (e.g. 20120728). We could just tag a new release a few days before the new iso gets created and update the package.
So, what do you think about this?
Greetings,
Pierre
Oh yes, I want to do this since long time :) So, as I'd like to create a new iso this week it would be good to have archiso packaged before. Did you push the recent changes into a non-public repo somewhere? I could also push patches directly to
Am 28.07.2012 03:26, schrieb Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi: projects.archlinux.org (after they are discussed) to make your life easier.
Greetings,
Pierre
Nope, I want some feedback from Thomas ;) Please push them to your git repo like with previous patches. Thanks :) -- Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi \cos^2\alpha + \sin^2\alpha = 1
On 07/30/2012 06:52 PM, Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi wrote:
On 07/30/2012 07:19 AM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
On 07/27/2012 09:49 PM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
Hi,
as I plan a new iso for next week, I was wondering if we should create tags for archiso so I can create an actual package to be put into the repos. This would simplify the building process and reduces some possible issues from e.g. an inconsistent archiso install. (e.g. if you just run make install old files wont get removed from the root-image directory. Imho the more we can automate and standardize here the better.
I guess the easiest way would be to use a versioning scheme like in arch-install scripts (every tag increments the version by one) or a date based one (e.g. 20120728). We could just tag a new release a few days before the new iso gets created and update the package.
So, what do you think about this?
Greetings,
Pierre
Oh yes, I want to do this since long time :) So, as I'd like to create a new iso this week it would be good to have archiso packaged before. Did you push the recent changes into a non-public repo somewhere? I could also push patches directly to
Am 28.07.2012 03:26, schrieb Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi: projects.archlinux.org (after they are discussed) to make your life easier.
Greetings,
Pierre
Nope, I want some feedback from Thomas ;) Please push them to your git repo like with previous patches. Thanks :)
OK here [#1] is done, all your patches with some minor modifications + gen [core] removed. https://github.com/djgera/archiso/compare/experimental -- Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi \cos^2\alpha + \sin^2\alpha = 1
Am 31.07.2012 01:35, schrieb Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi:
On 07/30/2012 06:52 PM, Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi wrote:
On 07/30/2012 07:19 AM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
On 07/27/2012 09:49 PM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
Hi,
as I plan a new iso for next week, I was wondering if we should create tags for archiso so I can create an actual package to be put into the repos. This would simplify the building process and reduces some possible issues from e.g. an inconsistent archiso install. (e.g. if you just run make install old files wont get removed from the root-image directory. Imho the more we can automate and standardize here the better.
I guess the easiest way would be to use a versioning scheme like in arch-install scripts (every tag increments the version by one) or a date based one (e.g. 20120728). We could just tag a new release a few days before the new iso gets created and update the package.
So, what do you think about this?
Greetings,
Pierre
Oh yes, I want to do this since long time :) So, as I'd like to create a new iso this week it would be good to have archiso packaged before. Did you push the recent changes into a non-public repo somewhere? I could also push patches directly to
Am 28.07.2012 03:26, schrieb Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi: projects.archlinux.org (after they are discussed) to make your life easier.
Greetings,
Pierre
Nope, I want some feedback from Thomas ;) Please push them to your git repo like with previous patches. Thanks :)
OK here [#1] is done, all your patches with some minor modifications + gen [core] removed.
We could probably improve our workflow a bit; atm I am not sure what is best though. The problem is that atm the repo on projects.archlinux.org is only used to build the releng images (which are kind of broken atm) and the release isos are build from a different repo. Maybe we could use different branches or split out the parts that are specific to our iso. -- Pierre Schmitz, https://pierre-schmitz.com
Am 31.07.2012 07:51, schrieb Pierre Schmitz:
We could probably improve our workflow a bit; atm I am not sure what is best though. The problem is that atm the repo on projects.archlinux.org is only used to build the releng images (which are kind of broken atm) and the release isos are build from a different repo. Maybe we could use different branches or split out the parts that are specific to our iso.
Why do you use different trees at all? Just push what you use to the main repository and be happy. And don't forget annotated tags!
participants (4)
-
Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi
-
Pierre Schmitz
-
Thomas Bächler
-
Tom Gundersen