On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 04:30:27PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 03:53:44PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > Bernd Eckenfels <email@example.com> writes: > > > > > In article <[🔎] 20050221103803.GD2811@grep.be> you wrote: > > >> Hypothetical daily KDE builds would also insanely increase the amount of > > >> network traffic being used by the mirror pulse and people upgrading > > >> their home boxes, so it isn't just a buildd problem. > > > > > > Perhaps it helps, if the buildds for slow systems introduce some delay > > > before startng the build, and not building if another architecture failed at > > > all. That way if a package is often uploaded or hase obvious errors, the > > > build for that is skipped. > > > > What would help save many hours on slow systems is having a script > > automatically set "Dep-Wait: libbfoo (>> 1.2-3)" for all new sources > > according to Build-Depends to prevent useless buildd attempts and > > failures and manual work to retry them. > > > > An attempt to build something big can take 3-4 hours to install > > Build-Depends, see they aren't sufficient and to purge them again. > > s/something big/something with lots of build-dependencies/ > > There are small KDE applications that require most of the KDE dependency > chain to be installed, while on the other hand XFree86's build > dependency list is (relatively) small. would it make sense to examine the queue to see if any packages have similar build dependencies and then move them to the top of the queue so they build immediately after the current one? or to re-sequence the queue to group package with similar build dependencies. -Kev -- counter.li.org #238656 -- goto counter.li.org and be counted! (__) (oo) /------\/ / | || * /\---/\ ~~ ~~ ...."Have you mooed today?"...
Description: Digital signature