Re: buildd queue starvation (Was: Re: Do not make gratuitous source uploads just to provoke the buildds!)
Op za, 12-03-2005 te 21:12 -0800, schreef Thomas Bushnell BSG:
> Jeroen van Wolffelaar <email@example.com> writes:
> > If the queue is non-zero for a longer time, there is a problem in buildd
> > machine power, and the wanna-build admin has choosen to in this case
> > allocate the buildd power that remains to the building of packages that
> > are of higher priority, regardless of their age in the queue. The
> > allocation of a scarce resource is almost by definition a trade-off, and
> > this is the decision that has been made.
> First off, I think much confusion has been caused by using the word
> queue here. A queue is a FIFO list; if there isn't even the least bit
> FIFO in its management, which seems to be the case, then it shouldn't
> be called a queue. If it were not called a queue, I would not have
> made many wrong assumptions, and I think others too, to assume that of
> course some kind of FIFO processing was happening. So PLEASE change
> the name; stop calling it a queue.
None of the documentation calls it a 'queue', in fact; only people not
really involved in buildd stuff do.
> I can see excellent reasons why age in the list shouldn't matter. But
> package "priority" and "section" are extremely poor bases to decide
> what the actual importance of a package is.
Why would that be the case? You're telling me you think gnome-games is
way more important than gcc for us to build?
smog | bricks
AIR -- mud -- FIRE
soda water | tequila
-- with thanks to fortune