On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 10:17:57AM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: > It's fairly clear looking at this excerpt from my "igloo" page that > buildd ordering is influenced by the alphabetical position of your > package. I know that there are other factors, and I remember having > read what the ordering criteria was some time ago (probably during my > NM period in 2004), though I am not quickly able to locate this > information. You might want to look at the wanna-build needs-build list to see the true ordering, for example now for alpha. http://buildd.debian.org/stats/?arch=alpha&state=Needs-Build You will see that the order is Priority:, Section:, and within section alphabetic. Uncompiled packages are last, and people with wanna-build access can prioritize/deprioritize packages by hand. > It seems to me that ordering should be influenced by > priority, number of reverse dependencies, and age of upload probably > in that order. The alphabetical position of the package shouldn't > play into it at all, except maybe as a tie breaker among packages that > have exactly the same upload time. The current system results in the > xerces packages virtually never rebuilding on all platforms within > their 10 days in unstable before being eligible to transition. Better than fudging build order is just to make sure that there is enough buildd power around to ensure everything get's built promptly. Just adjusting build ordering will make *some* package allways lag behind. Since you believe xerces-c2 is important, intuitively it being "Priority: extra" feels like a missclassification. I bit of apt-cache rdepends reveals packages with optional priority at depend on xerces-c2, for example anymeal: http://qa.debian.org/debcheck.php?dist=lenny&package=anymeal - this our most ignored policy violation...
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature