Re: breaking buildds with new version of sbuild?
* Philipp Kern (pkern@debian.org) [110403 23:18]:
> On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 11:13:09PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > It is of course ok if the new apt-resolver config only works after
> > creating such keys.
> >
> > It is however simply not acceptable at all (and even not debatable)
> > that existing working aptitude chroots stop working without any good
> > reasons. I consider buildds a 24x7 service, which we shouldn't just
> > disrupt because things could be done different.
> >
> > There would be various other ways: e.g. continue to use the existing
> > aptitude config and setup-type till keys auto-generated by cron are
> > there. Or various other ways I could imagine.
>
> DSA veto'ed key generation in the postinst.
postinst would be bad, agreed.
> Yes, the cron bit could've worked.
> TBH I logged into every buildd that was online and created the keys there.
> Yes, I know it was a pain, but still I can understand the reason.
Except the two mipsel buildds here - well, who cares anyways?
> > I'm really short of giving up caring about buildds and wanna-build,
> > because working setups are disrupted for no good reason - and it isn't
> > even considered a problem. Sorry, but this isn't the way to operate
> > the buildd service.
>
> Sure, feel free to take over the maintainance of the buildd software. As I
> mentioned in the channel, if upgrades aren't appreciated I'll simply stop
> caring and I know that noone else would step up.
I would be happy with going on with 0.60.0 unless there are issues why
we need to use 0.61.0 - and I think I said so in the IRC channel more
than once. That would have saved us as well the issues that we have
with lenny hosts plus buildd-0.61, and also the user env not being
defined anymore. Stability is some value in running a core service.
Anyways, I think I have done my fair share of buildd software
upgrades, as well as with stabilizing the wanna-build software, adding
puppet receipts for dupload.conf, working on getting build-essential
be considered by BD-Uninstallability, auto-not-for-us, etc.
> And no, I don't break stuff "for fun". I was also pissed off by this change
> but I do understand the reason. It's not pretty but meh, apt surely gives
> a damn about usability here.
I didn't say that *you* broke them for *fun* - but the net result is
obviously that there are changes that break working, existing configs
for no good reason. It's really sad to see that happening, and it
annoys me much. I would like to read at least some "I'm sorry that
this happend" - same as I say when I break something and put work on
or annoy other people.
Andi
Reply to: