Re: m68k arch falling ever behind
Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 06:36:25PM +0100, Roman Hodek wrote:
> >
> > > Needs-Build is primarily ordered by priority and section, build
> > > status, then alphabetically by package name.
> >
> > Yep. To be fully exact, the order of packages is not implemented in
> > buildd, but in wanna-build, and the default order compares the
> > following fields in that order:
> >
> > - status (out-of-date > uncompiled)
> > - priority (required > important > ...)
> > - section (libs > base > devel > ...)
> > - package name
> >
> > Note that Section: libs is pushed up, because such packages are often
> > needed by other packages...
> >...
>
> It seems the concerns by most people might be resolved if you add the
> following rule at the top:
> - waiting for more than one week?
>
> This should fix the starvation problems currently observed.
>
> > Roman
>
> cu
> Adrian
Several people suggested something along:
Priority = (base + time) * scale or base + time * scale
The factors mentioned would modify base or scale or both to some
degree. Increasing base means a package starts earlier in the queue,
increasing scale means it advances faster in the queue.
I think factoring in the time the source is waiting is important. The
architectures with backlog keep starving packages.
The one factor I find totaly unfair is the name of the package. There
is just no grounds why aaaaa-useless should be build before
zzzz-important. Hey, I should rename debmirror to a-mirror-script so
it gets build faster.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: