Re: Bits from the FTPMaster meeting
Sune Vuorela <email@example.com> writes:
> On 2009-11-18, Gerfried Fuchs <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> I am a bit confused with respect to how buildd autosigning is required
>> for this. It makes it sound somehow like it would affect porter binary
> Basicalyl, the turnaround time is too long if we have to wait for manual
> buildd signings.
> For example, when we upload a new KDE, we usually upload a big chunk of
> source packages (3-5) where package 1 breaks last package.
> Currently, we can upload all source packages built for amd64 and i386
> and that way keep kde installable in unstable for more than 95 % of the
> With 1 package signing per day (which is quite normal), we have 5 days
> where kde by itself is uninstallable on all archs, if the buildds have
> to build all packages by current means.
> With buildd autosigning, we probably only have a day or so on the fast
> archs with kde being uninstallable.
> and I have the impression that we will get quite many bug reports about
> kde being uninstallable. We arleady do that when kde is a part of
> another transition, and if kde is blocking itself on main archs, we will
> only get more.
> So yes, I really hope that 'source only' (or throw away binaries)
> uploads only get implemented when buildd autosigning is in place.
> (KDE doesn't have that many users on e.g. hppa, so the current
> turnaround time isn't that much of a problem outside the main archs)
An alternative way to solve this is to use build packages on the
buildd without waiting for them to be signed and uploaded. This would
require some coordination with wanna-build so later KDE packages are
only given to the buildd that has the earlier ones available.
The buildd would then build all of KDE and the buildd admin could sign
it all in one go. That way you have potentially 0 uninstallable time.