[ATrpms-users] Request for testing new mythtv build setup

[Axel Thimm]

On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 09:53:58AM -0600, Keith C wrote:
> On Nov 16, 2006, at 1:08 PM, Axel Thimm wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 11:13:53AM -0600, Keith C wrote:
> >> On Nov 16, 2006, at 5:27 AM, Axel Thimm wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 08:36:21AM +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 09:08:30PM +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> >>>>> I've been asked to regularily offer trunk packages in a designated
> >>>>> area (e.g. the bleeding section). [...]
> >>>>> But since the advent of fixes branches the core package need to be
> >>>>> rebuilt each time just the same, so some of the reasons melt
> >>>>> away, and
> >>>>> the new arguments for keeping it all under one src.rpm change the
> >>>>> balance.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, what do you think? Merge mythtv and mythplugins into one  
> >>>>> build?
> >>>>
> >>>> Please test the merged builds at http://atrpms.net/name/mythtv-new/
> >>>
> >>> Extending to the user list: Please test the packages in the URL  
> >>> above
> >>> (or activate atrpms-testing). They should be functional equal to the
> >>> builds in atrpms-stable, please confirm. If not, then there is a bug
> >>> in the build setup somewhere - the sources are otherwise  
> >>> identical (on
> >>> purpose), e.g. no new bug fixes from the fixes branch.
> >>> -- 
> >>
> >> Not sure I follow the discussion here completely.  Is this the merged
> >> build, the from trunk build, or is it both?
> >
> > No, no trunk build, yet. This is the merged build that will then be
> > used for both stable and trunk versions. If built in one sweep there
> > will never be a build-time overlap between the two myths and the
> > install-time ambiguity is resolved by placing them in different repos
> > (stable vs testing/bleeding).
> >
> 
> I noticed a trunk build has appeared in bleeding for FC6.  As some of  
> the newer stuff shows up in SVN, I'm getting tempted to jump.   
> Storage groups in particular look interesting.  And the stream from  
> remote backend option just added is necessary for one of my frontends.
> 
> Is there a regular build schedule for trunk?  I'm probably going to  
> hold off until I'm ready to move my FC5 backend to FC6 and 2.6.19 at  
> the same time.

I'd like to have weekly builds. But beware these builds may eat up all
your recordings!
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/atrpms-users/attachments/20061205/fc41b640/attachment.bin