Re: update on binary upload restrictions
Santiago Vila <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
>> If we do go to source-only uploads, could this problem be avoided by
>> having arm and other slow arches wait until at least one other arch
>> successfully builds the package?
> I think that would be a good idea anyway, even if we do not go to
> source-only uploads. There is no point in wasting expensive CPU cycles
> to build a package if it FTBFS on every architecture.
I would rather do the opposite. Stop building a package when it fails
on other archs. Thing about the (unlikely) situation that arm is
idle. Nothing to build. Now someone uploads foobar. Should we wait or
just try? If it works we saved time. If it fails only idleing is lost.
Even better would be to take the number of architectures
failed/succeeded/needs-build into account when deciding on the
priority of a package. The more archs fail the lower a source drops in
needs-build, the more succeed the higher it rises. The more backlog a
port has the more successfull this priority would be, i.e. it works
best for the problematic archs that need it.