Re: I need build access to a Sarge chroot for alpha
Helge Kreutzmann <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 12:44:00PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> I just had to rebuild 800 packages (because I can't be sure which ones
>> are broken) for amd64 because the buildd seems to sometimes produce
>> packages with missing files.
> Wouldn't it be better to fix the autobuilder then? IMHO autobuilder
> should be more reliable than a random person.
A normal person usualy watches a build and often notices things. They
should at least read through the build log and such.
An autobuilder usualy runs totally on its own and most of the time the
first sign of trouble with minor misbuilds is someone reporting a
bug. By that time the package has been in circulation for a while and
you get a snowball effect.
Also often you get residue from former builds, may it be packages not
getting purged or packages leaving dirt behind (like yacc not removing
its alternative as we just had).
>From my experience of the m68k and mipsel buildd I would say the
number of misbuilds for buildd and normal uploads is around the same,
buildd misbuilds just tend to cluster closer together. And most of the
manual misbuilds are DDs not using a chroot.
>> Sometimes builds don't work right. Thats life.
> Sure, but then the buildds should get fixed.
>> PS: A good package would check the existing files against what it
>> expects and run some other tests during build.
> Ok, I will bear that in mind when I work on my packages next time.
I'm thinking of automating that on the amd64 buildd. Something like
making a file list from the old deb and the new deb and adding a diff
of them to the buildd log.