Re: Do not make gratuitous source uploads just to provoke the buildds!
Steve Langasek <email@example.com> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 03:19:23PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>> [Probably going a bit off track for -release; MFT to -devel]
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 07:14:35PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > The queue ordering is entirely automatic, and AIUI the queue(s) is (are)
>> > sorted by:
>> > - target suite
>> > - package priority
>> > - package section
>> > - package name
>> > I personally believe it would be beneficial to prioritize by upload urgency
>> > as well (probably as a sort criterion between package priority and package
>> > section), but the w-b maintainers disagree.
>> I'm trying to work out why package *section* matters at all. Package name
>> is a bit odd, too, but including the section in there is just totally whack.
> Consider that libraries have their own section. Certain package sections
> are (on the whole) more central to the dependency graph than others, so it's
> to our advantage to order those first to reduce the need for give-backs or
Build-Depends should be set automaticaly as Dep-Wait for every source
upload. That would reduce a lot of needless work for both machines and
>> Upload priority would be nice to sort by, but I think the queue needs to be
>> as FIFO as possible for fairness and "principle of least surprise" sake.
I think package urgency isn't considered because people would abuse it
to get their packages build faster, or so someone nameless fears.
Remember that the buildd queue is not FIFO at all. The queue has a
completly static order. Any changes to the queue are just packages
hiding because they are not "needs-build". I consider that the biggest
flaw of all in wanna-build.
>> Now I have this urge to go and make surgery on w-b.
Yes please. Packages should Dep-Wait automatically, should be ordered
by '(age * alpha) + beta' with alpha / beta set by at least the
package priority and upload urgency. Optionaly also the number of
Build-Depends and revers Build-Depends on the package.
> Given that the w-b maintainers disagree, changing the code is not the hard
> part. The system is designed such that it only really works properly if the
> buildds drain the Needs-Build queue on a regular basis. This doesn't seem
> terribly robust to me, but it's not my call.
If you can convince the w-b admins to allow changes I could send you
patches. Having a queue that will hapily starve packages is quite
unfair to maintainers. Next you know x* will be renamed to a* just to
get it build faster.
> Steve Langasek
> postmodern programmer