Re: Announce: docker-buildpackage
- Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 23:18:44 +0200
- From: Thomas Goirand <zigo@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Announce: docker-buildpackage
On 05/02/2018 02:02 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> And it is for those same reasons that libvirt and openstack are not
> good alternatives. No-one wants `sbuild-update -udcar unstable' to
> have to involve a libvirt driver for sbuild chroots.
Well, it all depends. If one has to setup an OpenStack deployment to be
able to build packages, then yes, it's too complicated.
But if everyone is using a single access to many public clouds, with a
pool of ready-to-be-used VMs for building, then it's a whole different
That's what I've been doing to release OpenStack Newton for Stretch. The
experiment was very nice. We unfortunately decided to stop it because
dealing with the way upstream OpenStack is maintained was too demanding.
Still, this kind of setup (ie: patch proposal and review through a
review system) was super nice, and I wish we could generalize it by
plugging Salsa to something like this. Having thousands of pre-built VMs
in a pool for gating the build of packages was kind of cool. Having
packages already built with a temporary repository when someone does a
patch proposal is also super nice. It doesn't mater if it's made with
OpenStack or another virtualization layer. The nice thing was using
something like nodepool and zuul for scheduling jobs, and having it the
default way to submit patches.
Thomas Goirand (zigo)