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

Re: Do not make gratuitous source uploads just to provoke the buildds!

[remove -release, nothing they can do about it]

Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:

> On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 03:01:28PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:
>> > 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.
>> This is news to me.
>> It means that when one is told "just wait, your package will get
>> rebuilt"; it is not necessarily true at all.  There is no upper bound
>> at all on time to wait for building, and that's a disaster.  People
>> should stop repeating the fiction then that "just wait" means "your
>> package will eventually get built".
> Er, packages *do* eventually get built; they just don't get built in any

The only way to get the last package in the queue (zvbi or something)
build is when the queue is empty. Unfortunately some archs are on the
border of being too slow which means the time between empty queues is

The effect of being (too) slow is that some few package will not be
build for weeks/month instead of all packages being build a few days
late as a simple FIFO would do.

> kind of FIFO order.  I don't particularly care for this arrangement myself
> (it means there are plenty of times that a high-priority bug in a
> low-priority package stays on the release team's watchlist for far too
> long), but I don't have any proof that a different queue ordering would
> actually work better for the project, and the buildd admins *are* committed
> to keeping up with the queue even though hardware circumstances sometimes
> prevent it from time to time.
> -- 
> Steve Langasek
> postmodern programmer


Queue not empty since:

arm	Feb 18th
mipsel	Feb 26th
s390	Mar  6th
mips    Mar 10th (possibly)

That means (just an example) that an upload of zsh on Feb. 18th didn't
get build at all on arm while the 5 uploads of ash all got build.

Does that sound fair? Just because ash starts with an 'a' it gets
prefered treatment?

I see the point of sorting by priority to get the essentials build
with priority in case of backlogs.

I don't see a point in sorting by section as base is already done
through priority and an automatic Dep-Wait would get libs build

And last I feel the sorting by name is actualy harmfull. That should
be exchanged with the time of upload, i.e. FIFO if the rest matches.
We all know FIFO isn't the best but it is simple, fair, predictable
and does not starve. I think it would avoid a lot of those "Why am I
stuck in the buildd queue?" questions.


Reply to: