Re: mentors.debian.net reloading
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 04:51:01PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 26/10/07 at 16:06 +0200, Christoph Haas wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 03:26:57PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > On 26/10/07 at 14:18 +0200, Christoph Haas wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm more interested in piuparts tests than in builds, actually. The
> > > point is that most DDs don't use piuparts because there's not many
> > > benefits in spending time setting it up. Having a piuparts installation
> > > working on mentors.d.n would allow everybody to easily test his
> > > packages.
> >
> > That would mean getting the package in Debian (with the dependencies),
> > installing it, testing upgrading to the new deb etc., right? I just
> > worry what happens if I try that with a package that pulls in 1 GB of
> > dependencies. How would that work? (Disclaimer: I have just recently
> > begun to actually use piuparts.)
>
> It works fine, but takes some time. I ran piuparts several times over
> the whole archive, without running into severe problems.
I'll try that out.
> > > Regarding builds, it might not be necessary, but it's still good to
> > > have. When packages are waiting for a long time, rebuilding them from
> > > time to time could exclude some packages that are no longer candidates
> > > for sponsorship (since they fail to build).
> >
> > Right. But although I used to sponsor a lot of packages hardly any of
> > them actually failed to build. Mostly because the maintainer forget a
> > certain dependency. But it's certainly possible to run pbuilder on the
> > package.
>
> What Ondrej proposes is to turn mentors into a package archive, where
> packages would be built automatically on several arches, and people
> could download them. In that case, it's required to build package for
> all archs available in the service (you can't ask the uploader to do
> that hmiself).
Did Ondrej say that we need a public buildd? Actually that is something
I would ratner not do because I have certain (very bad) experience with
it. When we kept the uploaded binary (.deb) packages our support mailbox
was literally flooded with end-users (!) complaints that the packages
were buggy. They used it as debian-multimedia or other inofficial binary
package repositories. I think that making it more a PPA-style service it
a good idea - for *source* packages. But don't you think the focus is
still the sponsoring process? I can't think of a case where people want
to publish Debian packages but don't want them to get into Debian.
Traffic is another concern. Without binary packages we are having less
than 1 GB traffic from mentors. With binary packages it was a few
hundred GB. I didn't have to pay for it but if people (ab)use it as
marillat V2.0 then I wouldn't bet on the numbers any more.
Christoph
Reply to: