Re: Seeking feedback on a meta package builder
Hi,
On Tue, 08 Jun 2021, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> With "look behind the abstraction", I think that you mean that debusine
> would have to implement the mdbp api to perform worker selection. While
> that would be possible indeed, I don't see this as required though.
[…]
> I do wonder though, in what kind of situation would you want to merely
> know whether a backend can perform a build as opposed to just attempting
> it and being able to tell backend issues from actual build failures
> apart.
I want to know it precisely in the context of selecting a worker. I don't
want to schedule a task on a worker and later get back an answer "sorry I
can't handle your task", and then have to schedule it on some other
worker.
When I have selected a worker, I want to be sure that the worker
is properly configured to be able to run that specific task.
> > It would not be enough for debusine yet (for debusine I need to be able to
> > export data from the worker and then make that decision on the server and
> > not on the build machine itself) but it would be nice step forward for the
> > local use case where you want "mdbp" to figure out alone which backend to
> > use based on what the user did setup earlier.
>
> Yes, that makes sense. I note that the decision is meant to be made on
> the build-issuing side for mdbp as well. If you use the ssh backend, the
> relevant command might look like this:
>
> mdbp-ssh someserver.somesite mdbp-mmdebstrap --mirror http://mirror.somesite/debian
Yes, but using the ssh backend will require specific user configuration
while the sbuild/pbuilder one could potientially be auto-selected based
on whether the user did run the appropriate sbuild-create-chroot or
pbuilder --create earlier.
> > This abstraction definitely makes sense to me. Before looking closely
> > at your build_schema.json, but after having looked at your mail here,
> > I wrote this as a try to go in your direction:
> > https://freexian-team.pages.debian.net/debusine/devel/ontology.html#task-packagebuild
>
> Great. Maybe that's the level where we can make best progress?
Likely, yes.
> I've taken the liberty to rather open a discussion issue at
> https://salsa.debian.org/freexian-team/debusine/-/issues/10. Hope this
> works for you.
Yes, thanks!
> > PS: I already hate the "mdbp" name after having it typed so many times.
>
> I'm not attached to either. Any suggestions?
sbp for "standardized build package" is easier to type but not necessarily
nicer.
"justadeb" or "gimmeadeb" or "buildadeb" because I just want a .deb (and I
don't care how it gets built!).
"deblord" or "debring" - the lord of the ring to tie all package builders
together
Cheers,
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Raphaël Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org>
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ The Debian Handbook: https://debian-handbook.info/get/
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Debian Long Term Support: https://deb.li/LTS
Reply to: