Re: buildd could run "make -i" twice on failure
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 08/09/13 01:20, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 07, 2013 at 11:28:31PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> After a build fails on the buildd, it would be really useful to
>> have the build run again twice with "make -i" and log the output
>> of the second retry
>
> What's the main advantage of doing so? To log further errors not
> seen due to the first failure? Why not just use "-k" to begin
> with?
If -k will try all the same things as -i (which is true for most well
written Makefiles) then it is fine.
I agree that developers could just add -k in the build section of
debian/rules, but the output is quite verbose. One reason I suggest a
re-run of the make with -i (or -k) is to get a more concise summary of
the errors, probably with -j1 as well, and make that available
separately from the normal buildd log output.
> There's no guarantee that "make" is being used for building, and
> it's non-trivial to determine if it is or is not in use, nor how to
> invoke it appropriately. If we want to do it centrally, it would
> be more reliable to add a new target which sbuild or other build
> tools could invoke on error, and which package maintainers could
> add to support their specific requirements.
That would be quite OK. Maybe every target could have an optional "on
failure" target.
As well as a new target (or targets), there would also need to be some
way to have the output of the target redirected to a dedicated log
Later on, this could also lead to more advanced reporting, e.g. rather
than just counting the number of packages that fail on HURD or fail
after some transition, we would be able to count the number of actual
errors and calculate the ratio of errors/package, etc.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/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=v0pO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: