Re: pre-building NEW packages, when they only introduce new binary packages
On 11293 March 1977, Philippe Cloutier wrote:
Lets jump in here, even if not all points address your mail only.
> If by "disfavour" you imply that it's intentional that NEW packages
> aren't built before being accepted, I think you're wrong. I think it
> would require not completely trivial changes.
It *is* intentional that NEW queue packages wont get build
automagically.
One of the reasons is that we arent allowed to transfer
packages from NEW outside of the US, unless we accept them into the
archive. (US export laws and stuff and lalala, details can be read in
threads way in the past when crypto in main went live. The basic
knowledge is: NEW has to be in the US and packages not exported unless
they are accepted into the archive).
Now, one might limit the packages to such ones that already got accepted
in the past and "just" change binary package names. But thats IMO much more
work than it will ever gain us, as you
- need to sort out which packages are ok to get autobuild from NEW
- need to make them accessible to the buildds in some way. And only
them.
- Have to let buildds and wanna-build look at yet another location for
packages and build them
- Have to sort them into the queue somehow. If you go and sort them
"below everything in unstable" then you wont have *any* advantage
from "autobuilding NEW", as only faster architectures will ever
built them, as the slower ones wont get down that far in the queue.
And last, but also most complicated:
- Need a way for all the buildd admins to see when they can finally
sign a build log for a NEW package (after it got accepted), or when
they need to go and delete it, as it wont ever get accepted, thanks
to a REJECT. While you can do the first automagical by, lets say,
looking at incoming.debian.org or packages files, you can't do the
latter in any good way. Packages might get rejected due to some
issue in them, and then maintainers are free to upload them with the
same version to NEW again.[1]
The whole thing is just way less benefit compared to the work one needs
to do for it.
[1] Yes, for REJECTs you can re-use the version number. The archive only
requires new versions when the package got visible for users.
--
bye Joerg
< vorlon> I realize the risk of portability problems is lower than with certain other desktop
environments beginning with K that will go unnamed
Reply to: