Am 29.06.2011 um 20:34 schrieb Yanni Chiu:
I see that you've got your build going now. Anyhow, here's the reply that I started before lunch...
On 29/06/11 9:50 AM, Norbert Hartl wrote:
ConfigurationOfSeaside30 project lastVersion load
isn't that strange, right? ConfigurationOfSeaside30 references OmniBrowser stable. OmniBrowser stable is 1.3 which references the file OmniBrowser-Standard-lr.541 which can not be found in the repository specified for omnibrowser.
So I'm trying to understand this. Either I'm doing something wrong or the CI stuff is broken. And I don't have a glue how others solve this.
My build script is at: http://hudson.jooshr.org/view/Pharo1.3/job/Pharo1.3-Seaside3.0/ws/p13-seasid...
I'll take a look.
I've not looked at it in a while. It seems that I load Seaside using Gofer, without going through Metacello. It's done this way, because the ConfigurationOfSeaside30 did not exist, when this build was set up.
I don't use Metacello for most of the stuff in jenkins, too. I thought it might be a good idea to test this in my development image.
I also do not load Omnibrowser because it was not loading properly, at the time I was setting up my build. I had to adjust the Seaside packages that were loaded, to avoid the need for Omnibrowser.
I figured out the problem but didn't find the file. So this was a dead end.
In some downstream jobs, I do use Monticello configs, because they were available, when I was setting up those build jobs.
Your guess that the missing package is in the build cache is likely correct. That missing package is available at: http://source.lukas-renggli.ch/omnibrowser.html That should get you past that hurdle in your build, so you can start to customize it.
Hmmm, I though I looked at this location but couldn't find the particular file. The package in the package-cache is a two fold thing. I understand it is a big hussle for developers if they have problems because loading of a package fails. With the package-cache you lose to test a setup that is reproducible by others. That's not good but then it is a rare case (or should be) that might not need to be covered. thanks for your help, Norbert