On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 11:43:48PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> the "more" or "less" aspect of the urgency is relevant here. We
> obviously have a system for classifying the severity of bugs in
> packages, and it's possible to relate these bug severities to the
> urgency field in uploads; even assuming it does get abused by
> maintainers,
I don't think the possibility of something like that being abused is as
strange as you seem to imply. As proof of that statement, I faintly
remember someone doing a gratuitous source upload just to provoke the
buildds...
> how would considering urgency for package build ordering be worse than
> what we have now given that it should only be an issue in either case
> when the buildds are not working the way they should?
It would be worse in that it would increase the impact of a re-upload.
Not only would it trigger a rebuild on all architectures, it would now
suddenly also throw the build ordering around, possibly worsening the
problem that prompted the gratuitous upload in the first place by not
building urgent (in build-dependency order) packages first.
> > [1] this is technically possible, but only in a kindof hackish way, by
> > manually adding the package to a buildd's REDO file and (also manually)
> > setting it to 'building' by that host.
>
> Yes, I don't think it scales very well to either have the release team
> asking for this, or for the buildd maintainers to be fielding such manual
> requests. If anything, the current workaround options (ignoring select
> out-of-date binaries for an arch) seem more efficient.
Whatever you say; I don't mind either way. The offer still stands :)
--
EARTH
smog | bricks
AIR -- mud -- FIRE
soda water | tequila
WATER
-- with thanks to fortune
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
