Quoting Jeremiah C. Foster (2021-10-07 02:47:57)
On 10/6/21 7:47 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Jeremiah C. Foster (2021-10-06 22:22:55)
These repo groupings (core and packages) likely no longer serve the same purpose as originally - namely to be "complete and corresponding" source code for all the packages in PureOS. We likely ought to have a plan or create one for how we can have a one-to-one correspondence between source code in a git repo and the binaries in the archives to make support easier.
How will such change happen?
I don't know the details. I do know there has been very preliminary discussion on using git and existing tooling together in an approach like we do for the Librem 5 development. For work there, we tag packages, use a gitlab-ci.yml set up, and build on Jenkins. I believe the plan is to replace Jenkins or perhaps it's more accurate to say bypass Jenkins and send packages directly to Laniakea. Caveat emptor! I don't know the details or where we are.
Sorry, I was unclear: My question was about decision, not technical implementation.
Let me try again:
I have heard several times that the organisation of packages in the PureOS team had meaning historically and likely have less or no meaning nowadays.
My question is how do the PureOS transition from "likely ought to have a plan or create one" to "has a plan" on this matter?
How to know if it won't happen?
Hard to say because it already hasn't happened. :-)
Again, sorry for my ambiguity - let me try again:
How can Purism in general recognize if the PureOS team a) is in the process of transitioning from wanting a plan to having one or b) not being in such process.
(Obvisouly if one day the PureOS team announces "this is our plan!" there is no doubt, but if the PureOS team stops wanting a (new) plan then that is indistinguishable to being in the process of getting one.)
Kind regards,
- Jonas