Does the autobuilder have cmake?

[fatalsaint]

So I am maintaining pianobar in the extras-devel/testing and it requires cmake initially to build it.

Now, I've been doing it the lazy way and just compiling it myself in the SDK, building a platform specific source package with the binary and just uploading that. The problem is the autobuilder won't let me upload the same package version twice.. one for i386 and one for armel, it thinks they are the same package because of the version.

So I decided I better try and do it the "right" way and have the autobuilder compile it for me for both armel and i386...

So I added "cmake ." to the debian/rules file.

This works perfectly in the SDK when I do "dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot".. it does the full cmake ., make, and installs to the deb file.. even got it to optify..

But when I upload to autobuilder I get:
make: /usr/bin/cmake: Command not found


So.. does autobuilder have cmake? And/or.. what would be the "right" way to build from a cmake source so that autobuilder can understand it?

[Jaffa]

You'll need to include cmake in your Build-Depends; the autobuilder runs in a very simple and basic environment so that it's clear and consistent what you'll get.

[fatalsaint]

You'll need to include cmake in your Build-Depends; the autobuilder runs in a very simple and basic environment so that it's clear and consistent what you'll get.

Thanks.. I will do that.

[fatalsaint]

You'll need to include cmake in your Build-Depends; the autobuilder runs in a very simple and basic environment so that it's clear and consistent what you'll get.

Thanks again.. It worked... I actually needed to add a few different things to Build-Depends.. that's what I get for being lazy.

Now I have a philosophical question and am hijacking my own thread, hopefully that's allowed:

Now that I'm dealing with testing and the voting system I'm really seeing how badly it *sucks*.. just because of how hard it is to actually get votes on an app.

I currently have build -3 in the testing repo for pianobar, here (http://maemo.org/packages/view/pianobar/'), but the latest version as you can see is -4 which is very, very minor changes to source code from the upstream that don't address or fix any complaints I've seen with regards to the N900 - and also that -4 was built with autobuilder instead of my own.

Now.. I have 7 votes on version -3 to make it to extras.. but if I promote -4 then I'll lose them. So, since the update isn't anything important - should I just leave the one in testing with 7 votes until it finally makes it into Extras? Or do I promote and start all over from scratch again, thus delaying the time to getting to the users?

Really quite... annoying.

[Jaffa]

Now that I'm dealing with testing and the voting system I'm really seeing how badly it *sucks*.. just because of how hard it is to actually get votes on an app.

Welcome to the party. Fortunately, you're joining it at a point where changes are about to be enacted. Some random links:


QA process = bug fixing disincentive? (http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/maemo-developers/2009-October/021975.html)
Follow up from QA meeting on IRC (http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/maemo-developers/2009-November/022381.html)
...


VDVsx is heading up the efforts to get the changes made.