Re: m68k arch falling ever behind
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 05:25:32PM -0600, Chris Cheney wrote:
> Which means they all have little hope of ever being built since the
> buildds use LIFO ordering. IMHO This is an example of why it is not a
> good idea to build in LIFO order.
It's not a LIFO. Needs-Build is primarily ordered by priority and
section, build status, then alphabetically by package name. E.g.
building a packages in required is preferred over building a package in
optional, which in turn is preferred over building a package in extra.
And a package in optional/libs is sorted above a package in, say,
optional/games. A package that has never been built on a certain arch
before receives lowest priority. (Urgency might also be taken into
account, not sure about that.)
Usually, a buildd grabs a certain number of packages off the top of the
Needs-Build list, and grabs the next batch once it's finished building
the whole lot. Certain large packages might be exempted from this rule
and routed to special buildd machines or triggered by hand.
> LIFO ordering can be good if your buildd system is capable of ever
> catching up, but as seen with several of the archs, not just m68k,
> this happens very rarely.
If an arch cannot keep up, important packages still get built, less
important ones are stalled. I admit this can be frustrating if you're
maintaining an out-of-date package in extra/math, down at the very
bottom of the queue, but on the whole I think it's a reasonable scheme.
Regards,
Daniel.
Reply to: