launchpad-dev team mailing list archive

[Steve McInerney <steve.mcinerney@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 17:01 -0500, Gary Poster wrote:
> On Nov 18, 2010, at 2:06 PM, Maris Fogels wrote:
> > On 11/18/2010 01:12 PM, Jonathan Lange wrote:
> >> I don't see how having a clear step "make deploy" that depends on
> >> "make build" would invite hiccoughs in production.
> >> 
> >> jml
> >> 
> > 
> > Jono, I think having a "make deploy" target is a great idea, and
> would help make
> > the root Makefile more readable.
> 
> As you'd expect, this would need to be coordinated with the LOSAs, so
> their scripts are also updated.
> 
> Also, at that time it would probably be reasonable to reconsider the
> names we have for the LOSAs generally.  ``make compile`` is useful for
> deploying non-app-server boxes, for instance.


AIUI, one of the issues we've stumbled over before is the clash in
producing binaries for 32bit vs 64bit servers (I believe this problem is
slowly going away. slowly.)

But if we can pre-build everything but the actual binaries that
would/should help enormously with deployments.

ie.
"pre-deploy-build" on prasé.
"deploy-compile" on end servers

kind of thing.

??


> "build_eggs" is the target for the build machine.  It does have
> comments, happily.  It would not be affected by the proposed "deploy"
> target.

Hrm. I think I'm just repeating what you've said...


Cheers!
- Steve