[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Status of build-arch coverage



On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 01:58:48PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> Thanks for doing the rebuilds!

> * Roger Leigh <rleigh@codelibre.net>, 2014-02-18, 22:58:
> >┌────────────┬────────────┬───────┐
> >│  current   │ buildarch  │ count │
> >├────────────┼────────────┼───────┤
> >│ attempted  │ attempted  │   317 │
> >│ attempted  │ successful │    26 │
> >│ failed     │ failed     │    35 │
> >│ failed     │ successful │     3 │
> >│ successful │ attempted  │  1483 │
> >│ successful │ failed     │     3 │
> >│ successful │ successful │  8650 │
> >└────────────┴────────────┴───────┘

> >Raw data:
> >http://www.codelibre.net/~rleigh/rebuild-buildarch-20140218.sql.xz

> Do I understand correctly that your rebuilds were with -B, and
> therefore packages that build only arch:all package were not tested
> at all?

> It would be interesting to see how packages that builds arch:all
> packages behave when rebuilt with -A.

> >I hope the above is useful for measuring progress on this front.
> >Do we have any plans for enforcing build-arch for jessie at this
> >point? If we haven't already, stronger warnings when running
> >dpkg-buildpackage and stronger lintian warnings (errors?) would be
> >useful to add.
> 
> If build-{arch,indep} is missing, Lintian currently emits
> debian-rules-missing-recommended-target[0]. I think we should go
> ahead and make it emit debian-rules-missing-required-target[1],
> which is on ftp-masters' auto-reject list.

> I attached dd-list of packages that were is non-successful state in
> the "buildarch" rebuild. Packages marked with "*" were also in
> non-successful state in the "current" build.

> [0] http://lintian.debian.org/tags/debian-rules-missing-recommended-target.html
> [1] http://lintian.debian.org/tags/debian-rules-missing-required-target.html


> Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>
>  * openldap (U)
>    samba (U)

This is not useful without build logs.  Both of these packages use dh(1),
which is perfectly build-arch-compatible; there's bug #738641 reported on
openldap about the libdb5.1 transition, but that doesn't actually cause a
build failure yet.

So I think this build environment is suspect, and such a summary report is
not useful without substantial details.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: