Skip to content

WiP: ENH: enable travis to build debian pkg #5

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Open
yarikoptic wants to merge 6 commits into
base: debian
Choose a base branch
from
Open

WiP: ENH: enable travis to build debian pkg #5

yarikoptic wants to merge 6 commits into from

Conversation

@yarikoptic
Copy link
Member

@yarikoptic yarikoptic commented Aug 28, 2016 •
edited
Loading

apparently build fails on amd64 precise (see #7 ) ATM

@yarikoptic yarikoptic force-pushed the bf-install branch 5 times, most recently from 31a4f2a to 105f08a Compare August 28, 2016 02:55
@yarikoptic yarikoptic mentioned this pull request Aug 28, 2016
Closed
@yarikoptic yarikoptic changed the title WiP: BF: Install missing python modules, enable travis to build pkg WiP: ENH: enable travis to build debian pkg Aug 28, 2016
@yarikoptic
Copy link
Member Author

yarikoptic commented Sep 1, 2016

strange that the last build has failed (https://travis-ci.org/neurodebian/afni/builds/156517165) although I did add precise/x86_64-linux-gnu specific forcing of -fPIC upon it, and build passed locally ... hm

@yarikoptic
Copy link
Member Author

yarikoptic commented Sep 1, 2016

ok @mih -- now it succeeds to build/install/test package right here. Would agree to maintain the different .travis.yml which would from time to time cause merge conflicts? or may be you see a clean way to avoid possible conflicts or may be even make single travis.yml for both upstream and us?
actually probably we could absorb actual commands into two groups/scripts (upstream / debian) and invoke one or another based on presence of debian/ subdir!
or just do debian testing in addition to upstream (I like it even more)

so I will do that I guess to travis.yml

@yarikoptic
Copy link
Member Author

yarikoptic commented Sep 1, 2016

ah no --we can't build upstream probably because we strip it heavily so it should be one or another really

@yarikoptic yarikoptic mentioned this pull request Sep 2, 2016
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@yarikoptic