Re: Re: pre-building NEW packages, when they only introduce new binary packages
Le February 12, 2008 03:19:47 am Joerg Jaspert, vous avez écrit :
> 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.
[...]
>
> 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
[...]
> - 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.
You do get the advantage that builds for faster archs are ready right
away. Also, slow archs don't necessarily always have a queue. They just
need to have more buildds than fast archs. At the moment, "only" hppa
and mips* have significant queues, so...at least arm would build sooner.
[...]
>
> The whole thing is just way less benefit compared to the work one needs
> to do for it.
Thanks.
Of course, it *is* intentional not to throw NEW packages to the buildd
network in its current form, since it's not designed to support that. I
was talking about whether it was intentional to autobuild *none* of NEW.
Your mail clarifies that this is not intentional, we just don't have the
infrastructure for it, but we agree that even if it's possible to
autobuild at least parts, this would be low priority work.
Reply to: