[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [buildd] Action plan to get buildds getting online again

Hello Wouter,

Although it would be nice to have a full archive, I fear that we
won't be capable to keep up when we try to build the whole archive
of nearly 10000 packages now.

That was a stretch already last time while we were in the running, so I
don't think it is worth to try.

The buildd suite has changed since then

Originally, wanna-build would mark all packages as "needs-build"
including those that couldn't even be built because its build-deps
weren't available. This was because wanna-build couldn't check indirect
build-dependencies at the time.

This now has been fixed, and recent wanna-build will not mark packages
as "needs-build" unless and until they can actually be built. On my
powerpc buildds, I've not seen a "but they will not be installed"
message from apt in ages.

Thanks, that is good news indeed.

Additionally, if we do autosigning, then the buildd hosts will be more
efficient, as they don't need to wait for one of us to come along and
sign a build mail -- they'll sign stuff by themselves. This is used for
almost all buildd hosts in Debian now, except the ones maintained by
Lamont Jones and myself (don't know why Lamont has refused it; I did
because in the current scheme of things, I can't update the buildd key
myself, and I don't think that's a good thing).

If this is commonly accepted as best practice, I think we should definitely go for it.

This means two things: first, buildds will be more efficient (since they
don't need to wait much anymore and they won't waste time trying to
build things that can't be built), and they're not as limited by
manpower anymore (since there isn't as much attention needed anymore).

At least for well behaved and supported architectures, that will hold true :-) (Color me a sceptical, dyed-in-the-wool cynic.)

From the current point of view, I think it's too early to think of
re-inclusion in Debian. Maybe we can manage to follow unstable and
keep up with it and manage it somehow to get the stable version as
well built so that we can offer a stable distri to our users instead

That's the best I'd hope for. And it will take quite a few people to step up
and take care of a buildd system to pull off.

I've been promising to set up a buildd machine for over a year now, and
it still hasn't happened.

/me sighs.

/metoo sighs.

Honestly - I did try to follow Thorsten's notes on adding his repo and bootstrapping a chroot, but it failed mysteriously at step one. Did I mention my base system is still at version sarge?

Retried now after fixing a few network related goofs and it's much better - in what release was apt-key introduced again?

schmitz@hobbes:~$ sudo debootstrap --variant=buildd --include=apt,wtf-debian-keyring,debian-ports-archive-keyring sid /org/chroots/buildd/sid-ports http://frozenfish.freewrt.org/~tg/dp
I: Checking zlib1g...
I: Validating apt
I: Validating apt
I: Validating base-files
I: Validating base-passwd
I: Validating bash
I: Validating binutils
I: Validating bsdutils
I: Validating build-essential
I: Validating coreutils
I: Validating cpio
I: Validating cpp
E: Couldn't download cpp-3.3

is how far I get.

I've got a fair deal of 68k hardware these days, and it shouldn't take
me *too* much to set up one or two machines. I'll *try* to make the
time, some time soon.

What I don't get to this weekend, will have to wait a few weeks (got a kitchen to tile next WE).



Reply to: