tobuild file

[seth vidal]

On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 08:58 +0200, Enrico Scholz wrote:
> skvidal at phy.duke.edu (seth vidal) writes:
> 
> >> plague seems to try to connect directly with the buildserver. This will
> >> not work in most corporate or complex environments:
> >
> > I'd wager the vast majority of plague users are going to be coming at it
> > from a corporate environment. This is a hobbyist distribution, remember?
> 
> This should not stop us from doing things right from the beginning.
> *Enforcing* usage of a half-baked plague-client (and ignoring the
> current 'make build') is the wrong way.

I take issue that doing things the way you've suggested is 'right'.
Programming for the corner case is not 'right' nor sane. You program for
the common case and move out to cover the oddball options if you _HAVE_
to.

I take more issue that there is anything half-baked about plague or
plague-client. Just b/c it doesn't support an infrastructure that
doesn't allow arbitrary outbound connections doesn't mean it is
half-baked. 

oh and the current 'make build' way relies on me uploading them,
manually, from time to time using plague. So 'ignoring the whole make
build' is entirely the point. make build will become make plague
sometime soon.


> Why not tunnel it over an exiting https server?  E.g. over
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/plague; this should be doable with Apache
> httpd's ProxyPass directive.

b/c I doubt seriously red hat is going to allow that sort of misc cruft
to live on their bugzilla server(s). Now, we can do something with this
from another machine but I'm still wondering why we're inventing layers
of indirection for an extremely isolated case.

-sv