Skip to content
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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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