Re: Explications needed...
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 04:45:32PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > So, why :
> > * does aurelien initiative causes troubles ?
>
> If the packages he uploads have already been built (but not uploaded) by the
> autobuilders, the packages in the archive will not correspond to the public
> build logs, which reduces the utility of buildd.debian.org as a debugging
> tool. It will also leave the buildd maintainer with errors when he does
> upload the autobuilt packages and ftp-master rejects them as duplicates.
Notice that the source-only uploads were disabled, or the idea of discarding
the sources and do clean builds on all arches was rejected, because it was
deemed unacceptable that our users wait even a single day for uploads. And
this is a direct quote from elmo who i asked about this during debconf
Helsinki.
Don't you find it a bit hypocrit to have x86 uploads go directly to the
archive, and not allowing even a single day delay which would allow to stop
unclean DD-build-boxes breakage and a clean state, and on the other day let
the other arches depend on the good will of the buildd maintainer, who is
usually a single person, who doesn't communicate much, and who sometimes is
not able to sign and thus upload the packages for a couple of days (sometimes
more even, but i guess this is the exception).
This is the single-point-of-failure all over again, and we should really move
away from such setups and into a more transparent team-based with inter-team
communication and multiple backups setup.
This is i believe the major challenge that debian has been facing into all his
structural positions, and altough some areas made the move cleanly, altough
not without growing pains, the buildd infrastructure is maybe not one of them.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: