Re: [buildd] Action plan to get buildds getting online again
On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 02:09:58PM +1300, Michael Schmitz wrote:
> 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.
Yeah, I definitely agree on that one. This might be ironic given I'm one
of the last holdouts in the "regular" archive, but hey, here I am.
> >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.)
Hehe.
> >>>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?
Heh.
I have a completely fucked installation on quickstep. The MuckOS won't
do TCP/IP anymore, so I can't download from the Internet. I don't think
I have a working Mac CD-ROM anywhere anymore. The 2.2 kernels on the
MacOS partition won't boot the installed system anymore, but the keymap
hasn't been configured for 2.6 yet. Also, the network configuration is
broken.
What this means is I can't reinstall the Linux system, and I can't fix
the current Linux system either. And I doubt I have any SCSI-capable
machines anywhere closeby that I can do a hard disk transplant to.
I'm sure I can fix it somehow, but it'll need more than the average
"I'll spend an hour on m68k now" that I usually tend to have.
I suppose I'll work on another box first, though.
> Retried now after fixing a few network related goofs and it's much
> better - in what release was apt-key introduced again?
Er, not sure.
--
Copyshops should do vouchers. So that next time some bureaucracy requires you
to mail a form in triplicate, you can mail it just once, add a voucher, and
save on postage.
Reply to: