Re: Can't include scientific packages using online CGI builder
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 8:18 PM, carolus <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 3/11/2011 6:21 PM, Richard Nelson wrote:
> I'm having
>>> trouble connecting to your server. When I was able to download a build,
>>> often appeared later than the expected 5-20 min,
>> The above can happen if you show up with large build or hit a busy
>> time on the build server.
>>> and often disappeared well before the posted 24 h.
>> Not sure about the above statement. In general if anything sometimes
>> builds get kept longer than intended.
> The build is presumably there, but I seem to be getting intermittent
> failures to connect to the URL, which makes it appear to have disappeared.
>> Try to figure out why you are not getting mailers. Perhaps if you have
>> another email you could try.
> OK, but mail notification is a minor problem. I get the URL immediately
> from the web site upon submitting the job, and do not need the mail for
> that. The more serious problem is failure to connect to that URL. The mail
> would serve only to verify that the job ran and to report success or
> failure, independent of connection to the URL.
Well the mailers serve an important purpose of notification that the
requested build is complete. The estimated time is between 5 and 20
minutes, but, the times can run longer and since the builds are
serialized, should you hit a time when builds get spooled up you can
wait longer. So I ask again that you try from another email address
since I do receive the email notifications. In an effort to assist
you, I attempt to list your recent builds. I will check a couple of
the times it took to build. I am not checking whether success or
Completed about 15min after build file written.
Completed about 65min after build file written.
Completed about 21min after build file written.
>>> Is there any obvious reason why not to include
>>> all of octave3.2, r-base-core, and maxima?
>> Not sure what you ask here and so I assume you are talking about
>> package lists. If the said packages are not in a list and they are in
>> the main archive, then you can just add them on --packages .
> That is what I meant. I was asking because I do not know the intent,
> capabilities, and constraints of the on-line builder, other than what I can
> infer from trial and error, and so I did not know whether this was a
> reasonable goal. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the "main archive".
> Using the online debian package search, they seem to be in a
> standard-looking directory. I see now that octave works, and I think the
> other packages were in the same place. There must be some kind of size
> constraint, but I presume that is pretty big.
> If you
>> believe they would be valuable in a given package list, then you could
>> file a bug report.
> No, this is just for a custom build. Unless you want to add a scientific
> and engineering version.
If your selections would be valuable for others, you could submit a
wishlist bug to add a specific list or append these packages to
debian-science. Then others with the need for tools such as you desire
could be easily made available. For the record, I have no opinion on
the value of your said list, I only attempt to tell you how to share
your concept should you want to get included in the project.