Re: Do not make gratuitous source uploads just to provoke the buildds!
Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> writes:
> * Hamish Moffatt (hamish@debian.org) [050314 01:45]:
>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:16:56PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> > Our goal is that the queue gets empty from time to time, and so,
>> > priority shouldn't prevent a package from being built.
>>
>> How often should the queue be emptied, or when will an architecture be
>> declarared not-keeping-up?
>
> In light of
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/03/msg00012.html
> the release architecture must have N+1 buildds where N is the number
> required to keep up with the volume of uploaded packages
> at least once per day for etch.
That means no more m68k. Given that some packages compile up to 12
days there will be plenty of times the queue doesn't empty once per
day.
>> According to
>> http://people.debian.org/~igloo/needs-build-graph/index.php?days=30
>> arm hasn't been empty in over 3 weeks, and it's getting worse still.
>> s390 is also rising steeply.
>
> It is not only a question of days, but also, what expectations we have
> for the architecture. If we e.g. know that in the next days a buildd
> will be switched on again (as the buildd crashed, and the local admin is
> away), we are of course a bit more tolerant. Also, vacations are
> accepted.
I would like to see some stats showing on how many days in the last
year an arch reached 0 needs-build. I highly doubt that any arch
managed to do it every day troughout the last year.
If w-b had some aging algorithm instead of a fixed order we could say
an arch may not have more than 1 week lag for more than 1 week or
something.
> Cheers,
> Andi
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: