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

Re: how to ask for packages rebuilding

Op ma 20-10-2003, om 11:13 schreef Sven Luther:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 10:57:04AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > Ideally, it could be automated, by delaying the build
> > > of these packages by one day, and it would be fine.
> > 
> > That's an option, although imperfect since it assumes that all
> > architectures will always build all packages within one day, which
> > simply isn't true.
> Also, i think it could be automated in having the autobuilder explicitly
> check for build-dependencies versions, and don't trigger a rebuild when
> the build-dependencies have no chance to be fullfillable.

That's the idea of dep-wait.

> > First, let's get one misunderstanding out of the way: an autobuilder
> > will not, by itself, put packages in dep-wait; only a human will. So, if
> > a package failed due to unmet build-dependencies, it's a human who will
> > have to prepare the list of dependencies for which a package will have
> > to wait. Obviously, some people made errors in the ocaml situation
> > (because of ignorance).
> Ah, i thought (from the ia64 or hppa autobuilder situation) that failed
> packages where put on hold automatically, and then retrigered manually.

In a way, they are. They're put "on hold" (read: the build fails, and
they're stuck in state "building") automatically until someone has a
look at them. Once that's done, they're put in a different queue, where
they'll wait until all their build-dependencies are available.

On faster architectures (such as ia64, dunno about hppa), I can imagine
that by the time an admin has a look, everything is usually available,
and as such can understand that they don't use dep-wait as much...

> > Adding more explicite build-dependencies certainly is a possibility as
> > it makes things clearer for autobuilder maintainers; however, it is
> > maybe not the best solution if it is technically possible to build
> > lablgl against previous versions of ocaml: it will make backporting a
> > little harder.
> Well, i don't think it is a problem. There is not much sense in
> backporting a library only,

OK, if you say so.

> > I'll send a mail to the m68k porters' list, describing the problem, and
> > outlining what needs to be done. That won't mean there will be no
> > problems anymore, but it certainly will help.
> Ok, please CC debian-ocaml-maint for the archive.
> > > But if i understand the issues involved correctly, the first step of the
> > > dependency chain will build, but all the other packages will drop again
> > > from the needs-build queue, right ?
> > 
> > Yes, and that's what should happen: if they can't build, they have to
> > wait until they can. Packages that have to wait don't belong in
> > needs-build.
> > 
> > However, what has gone wrong in the past is that the dependencies which
> > were being waited on were incorrect. Instead of depending on ocaml, we
> > should've depended on the new version of the library. Which simply
> > didn't happen.
> Yes. Adding explicit (>> version) build dependency to the libraries will
> help there. I will add this to the debian/ocaml policy.

If you'll do that, there will not be need for m68k maintainers to be
notified about this...

I'll check the packages in dep-wait to make sure this release builds
easily; if you make sure ocaml packages use that explicit build
dependency in the future, the problem will be solved.

> > > Anyway, this helps, since now someone from the autobuilder folk is aware
> > > of the problem, and things will advance.
> > 
> > Yes, I think I'm fully aware of what's happening and what needs to be
> > done.
> Ok, thanks.
> Sorry for having insisted,


Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
If you're running Microsoft Windows, either scan your computer on
viruses, or stop wasting my bandwith and remove me from your
addressbook. *now*.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend

Reply to: