Re: checking buildd logs
* Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> [111127 16:29]:
> > I've made http://buildd.debian.org/~brlink/ available for now.
> > Maybe we should move it to a better place at some point.
>
> Maybe I wasn't clear enough.
>
> The ~brlink/ part if fine while you're developing it.
I'm still considering it to be in early state of development.
> It's not meant to add links from QA pages to it.
I guess here is the core of misunderstanding: I do not think
QA pages are for finished things only. Actually I think it has
no chance to even head in the correct direction without
input from other Debian Developers, for which some Debian internal
visibility is needed (which I consider the QA pages to be).
> We would rather see it being integrated properly in the site,
> which would mean that it's not some user page. It would also
> mean that it doesn't run as some user, because they tend to
> go away.
I'd also prefer it not running as me in the long run, but would
prefer some easy way to access it and experiment a bit the next
weeks.
> It could for instance hook into the script that now receives
> the logs files, and automaticly scan the log files. You could
> also think about making it mail the pts when a warning is
> detected and things like that.
I'm not sure if it integrates properly there.
My main focus is catching old stuff and little uglinesses,
that perpuates because only ever seen after an upload and not
important enough to justify a instant new upload.
I guess something that scans logs when receiving them would be
nice, but I think it might perhaps be better as a separate
project (then also with some way to automatically stop
packages with big problems) interacting with this project mostly
by exchanging signatures (i.e. using this check to see where
specific patterns happened in the past and if they are always
problems before adding them to some list for rejections or
mails then).
But that is only a guess. I do not yet know what my approach
can do and have not thought about anything one would like to
look at for new logs, so the opposite might be true, too.
> Maybe I should create a symlink from /logcheck to your logcheck
> dir for now instead? But I really would like that to be
> temporary, and things like that tend to live longer than they
> should.
A more functional name would be nice. (perhaps some days
with both links so that packages.qa.debian.org can switch).
I'd definitely like it to be not in my account in the long run,
but as I said currently it is still quite in flux.
Someone said "logcheck" would not be the best name, because there
is a program of that name. But I also have no idea how to name
it otherwise without getting long and/or redundant.
Bernhard R. Link
Reply to: