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

Re: mentors.debian.net reloading

On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 05:19:38PM +0200, Christoph Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 04:51:01PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 26/10/07 at 16:06 +0200, Christoph Haas wrote:
> > What Ondrej proposes is to turn mentors into a package archive, where
> > packages would be built automatically on several arches, and people
> > could download them. In that case, it's required to build package for
> > all archs available in the service (you can't ask the uploader to do
> > that hmiself).
> Did Ondrej say that we need a public buildd? Actually that is something
> I would ratner not do because I have certain (very bad) experience with
> it. When we kept the uploaded binary (.deb) packages our support mailbox
> was literally flooded with end-users (!) complaints that the packages
> were buggy. They used it as debian-multimedia or other inofficial binary
> package repositories. I think that making it more a PPA-style service it
> a good idea - for *source* packages. But don't you think the focus is
> still the sponsoring process? I can't think of a case where people want
> to publish Debian packages but don't want them to get into Debian.
> Traffic is another concern. Without binary packages we are having less
> than 1 GB traffic from mentors. With binary packages it was a few
> hundred GB. I didn't have to pay for it but if people (ab)use it as
> marillat V2.0 then I wouldn't bet on the numbers any more.

It's basicly what svnbuildstat.d.n do. It's not perfect but
shouldn't we work on the integration of the two tools.

1/ John Smith uploads its package on http://mentors.debian.net/
2/ m.d.n accepts the package and notifys svnbs.d.n
3/ svnbs.d.n fetchs the new source package
4/ svnbs.d.n add the package in its DB
5/ the buildbots build and run the QA tools and upload there results to
6/ provide through an undefined webservice an access to the DB.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: