Re: new buildd dependency resolution breaks self depends?
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 06:45:50PM +0200, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 07:54:59PM +0200, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
> > > If I may ask, for what purpose do the buildds have a special list of
> > > packages above and beyond those in unstable?
> >
> > So that in case various packages have to be build in an order,
> > where the seconds depends on the first being available and so on,
> > that it doesn't take weeks to get them all build. We would have
> > to wait at least a dinstall before the next one could be build,
> > assuming sometimes has the time to sign the package between
> > dinstalls.
> >
> > It basicly just avoids a whole lot of delays.
> >
>
> Unfortunately, it seems also to add quite some delays in the self-compiling
> case. :-/ Each time a buildd finishes, that buildd's Packages file gets
> updated due to the completed binary upload and all other buildds go back
> into the BD-Uninstallable state. (I assume this also means the package loses
> its place in line on the busy buildd queues)
That actually doesn't seem to be that case. I think ftp-master
just removed the old binary from unstable, and didn't give the
buildd's the chance to actually build against the old version,
and we're screwed now.
I suggest you ask them to restore the old binaries in unstable,
(and remove the arch all) packages for those arches it's not
yet build/uploaded for.
Kurt
Reply to: