Re: Debian needs more buildds. It has offers. They aren't beingaccepted.
Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 05:10:27AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be> writes:
> > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 01:12:41AM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 05:54:30PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In re buildds, and in declining order of importance:
> > > > > * I'd like a quick, public reply to questions sent to the port mailing lists
> > > > > like "Why hasn't qt-x11-free built on mipsel despite being first in the queue
> > > > > for weeks?"
> > > >
> > > > Obviously it was in weak-no-auto-build. That's fairly ok when there is no
> > > > huge backlog.
> > >
> > > There is something to be said about it being in weak-no-auto even when
> > > there is a huge backlog. qt-x11-free takes a considerable amount of time
> > > to be built; I can imagine that Ryan wanted to give priority to building
> > > a high quantity of packages being built instead of "just" the big ones.
> >
> > Only a few hours and less than the various mozilla packages not
> > excluded. The list was to random to show some deeper thought like
> > prefering the small packages.
>
> Mozilla doesn't have a shitload of more huge packages depending on it.
> qt-x11-free does.
Making qt-x11-free an even less likely candidate for weak-no-auto.
> > > (Of course that doesn't mean there's no problem, only that the motives
> > > for not building qt-x11-free are not that hostile or strange)
> >
> > The only thing hostile is not answering to the question why it wasn't build.
>
> I fail to see why 'not bothering because having better things to do'
> should be considered as 'hostile'.
Its just not friendly, bad word choice. Hostile was just floating
around in the text already.
> > > [...]
> > > > Of course, when James would accept communication with me directly I could
> > > > have told him that very soon, but instead I'm forced to use intermediators
> > > > such as Wouter and Adam to communicate anything to James.
> > >
> > > That's simply not true.
> >
> > That he could have told him or that he has to use intermediators?
>
> The latter.
I've seen him try several times on irc wihtout any success. Talking to
an intermediator seems to work though. So I don't see why its not
true. Its his experience.
> [...ftp-master being restricted...]
> > Why not move wanna-build off ftp-master then? All it needs is the
> > quinn-diff output for accepted/autobuild and the main archive and
> > thats easily transfered through a strictly controled ssh connect, by
> > mail, via http or any number of other ways.
>
> Because it takes time to set up, manage, and stuff like that. The
> archive scripts are probably already complex enough to not have to add
> that extra complexity.
>
> Also, injecting quinn-diff output into a local wanna-build is a lot
> faster than rsync'ing, scp'ing, or wget'ing it over to another system,
> and injecting it into the database there.
rsync, scp, wget the Packages/Sources file, thats what I suggest.
I don't want to imply its trivial to change it in a split second. I'm
just saying that _if_ the security of ftp-master is the problem for
granting wanna-build access in a timely manner or limiting wanna-build
management to just one person then it should be considered and planed.
My only experience with wanna-build is setting up my own and there it
was just a matter of updating the Packages/Sources files before
quinn-diff is run. Looks like its easy to setup on any host.
> [...]
> > He just ment that the human decision to change state should be made in
> > that time. Its unnaceptable to let packages hang as "building" for
> > weeks when the build log clearly indicates a trivial Dep-Wait.
>
> Goswin, I thought you'd have known buildd a little better by now.
> Sometimes packages slip through, and the admin has to clean up those
> cases manually. But if you're in over your head with work, this kind of
> thing tends to lag a while.
I know. But it seems to be a recurring theme for some archs, those
depicted as problematic in the thread. Its no problem if it happens
every now and then. But lately there seems to be too much work for
some admins, understandably.
The question is how much of a while and how often/how many packages is
grounds for concerns. I agree with the timeframe depicted, i.e. 2
weeks, as reasonable for normal operations. Circumstances preventing
such timely operations, like hardware troubles or vacations should be
noted somewhere or alternatives should be looked for.
If 2 weeks is too short make it 4 weeks. I certainly haven't been at
this long enough to be a good judge of the right[tm] number. Maybe I
have only seen good times. But I think adding some timeframes what is
considered normal to the buildd FAQ could help.
And if just some arch or person can't manage to hold up to "normal"
without giving a reason I feel a call for volunteers and accepting
them is fine. If its all archs or many persons that would indicate a
flaw in the timeframes given.
I also think that every arch should have at least 3 people involved in
the buildd. One doing the work, one to be sick and one left to train
more people or catch what falls through the cracks.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: