Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Gaudenz Steinlin gaud...@debian.org wrote: This would certainly make fixing stuff easier for me. Then I could do that myself. What are the rules to add someone to this group? Added now :-D -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: ota...@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlkti=nftbmktqsxjreqxavpz7vuumuamq+8topo...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
Quoting Gaudenz Steinlin (gaud...@debian.org): OK, I finally got around to add some mail support to the daily aggregator script. It only sends a mail if there are old or failed builds. See the attached patch. Ping, any comments on this? If the patch looks OK I can commit it to the SVN repo, but it needs someone with d-i group access (Otavio, Christian, ...) to actually activate it on d-i.debian.org. I think it's OK to commit, then I'll activate the script. Alternatively, we could ask you to be added to the d-i group..:-) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
Excerpts from Christian PERRIER's message of Son Nov 07 07:29:17 +0100 2010: Quoting Gaudenz Steinlin (gaud...@debian.org): OK, I finally got around to add some mail support to the daily aggregator script. It only sends a mail if there are old or failed builds. See the attached patch. Ping, any comments on this? If the patch looks OK I can commit it to the SVN repo, but it needs someone with d-i group access (Otavio, Christian, ...) to actually activate it on d-i.debian.org. I think it's OK to commit, then I'll activate the script. Alternatively, we could ask you to be added to the d-i group..:-) This would certainly make fixing stuff easier for me. Then I could do that myself. What are the rules to add someone to this group? Gaudenz -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. ~ Samuel Beckett ~ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
Hi Excerpts from Gaudenz Steinlin's message of Son Okt 31 16:49:39 +0100 2010: Excerpts from Christian PERRIER's message of Die Sep 14 06:55:28 +0200 2010: Quoting Joey Hess (jo...@debian.org): Christian PERRIER wrote: What I would also like to have is a way to easily *monitor* these daily builds. I'd be fine to do it myself on a regular basis if there's a way to get these status by mail (offline work most of the time during weeks). This is what I do with builds that are run on my own laptop, which already helps in catching build failures that happen on all arches (or on i386 only). OK, I finally got around to add some mail support to the daily aggregator script. It only sends a mail if there are old or failed builds. See the attached patch. Ping, any comments on this? If the patch looks OK I can commit it to the SVN repo, but it needs someone with d-i group access (Otavio, Christian, ...) to actually activate it on d-i.debian.org. Gaudenz There are still a few improvements possible: - The current output only has a link to the log of the failed build. I could also add the last lines of the build log. Do you think this might be helpful? - There are still some old builds. I'm still looking for someone to document the current autobuilder setup, so that it would become possible for others to investigate the cause for this and to add the relevant logs to the overview page. AFAIK currently only Luk knows how this works and it's not documented anywhere... (Luk, could you give me some pointers?) Gaudenz -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. ~ Samuel Beckett ~ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
* Gaudenz Steinlin (gaud...@debian.org) [101103 01:37]: This is indeed suboptimal. :-( Would it be possible to give some (ideally more than one person to not create bottlenecks) persons from the d-i team access to the buildds where d-i daily builds are built so they can investigate these issues themself? The problem is that that kind of access to the buildds is root-level access. Now that's not something we're too keen on handing out. Can someone from the buildd team shed some more light on this. If this is documented somwhere and I just didn't find the right place you can also just point me to the docs. I'm also happy to just read the scripts actually triggering the builds. http://lists.debian.org/20100331165134.ga19...@mails.so.argh.org and followups should contain all the necessary information. I assumed that that's documented somewhere within the d-i information pool. If there are improvements to our scripts, please feel free to send them to us. Especially usually I assume that even non-working builds should send an log to d-i.d.o. Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101103065232.gs15...@mails.so.argh.org
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
Hi Andi Many thanks, that was exactly the information I was looking for. Excerpts from Andreas Barth's message of Mit Nov 03 07:52:32 +0100 2010: * Gaudenz Steinlin (gaud...@debian.org) [101103 01:37]: This is indeed suboptimal. :-( Would it be possible to give some (ideally more than one person to not create bottlenecks) persons from the d-i team access to the buildds where d-i daily builds are built so they can investigate these issues themself? The problem is that that kind of access to the buildds is root-level access. Now that's not something we're too keen on handing out. Can someone from the buildd team shed some more light on this. If this is documented somwhere and I just didn't find the right place you can also just point me to the docs. I'm also happy to just read the scripts actually triggering the builds. http://lists.debian.org/20100331165134.ga19...@mails.so.argh.org and followups should contain all the necessary information. I assumed that that's documented somewhere within the d-i information pool. OK, I can now see the relevant scripts and the pieces are quite clear. If I see this correctly builldd-forced-command is executed on d-i.debian.org as a forced command in authorized_keys. While buildscript is executed on the buildd. How is the build script triggered on the buildd? Is this a cronjob or is this integrated into the buildd schduling infrastructure? What do you think about moving these two scripts into the debian-installer repository alongside all other scripts that generate the daily build webpages and stuff? At least the buildd-forced-command script is already in the same directory on d-i.d.o but is the only one not in version control there (it's not identical to the version in the git repository...). If there are improvements to our scripts, please feel free to send them to us. Especially usually I assume that even non-working builds should send an log to d-i.d.o. Currently the hppa buildd (last builds from lafayette) does not send any new logs since Jun 07. Gaudenz -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. ~ Samuel Beckett ~ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
[ Context for debian-wb-team: This thread started because not all autobuilder setups for d-i are currently working properly and I tried to figure out why but got stuck because I could not figure out how these build are triggered. ] Hi Excerpts from Luk Claes's message of Son Okt 31 18:53:37 +0100 2010: On 10/31/2010 04:49 PM, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: - There are still some old builds. I'm still looking for someone to document the current autobuilder setup, so that it would become possible for others to investigate the cause for this and to add the relevant logs to the overview page. AFAIK currently only Luk knows how this works and it's not documented anywhere... (Luk, could you give me some pointers?) Note for debian-wb-team: The problem with these builds is that they don't fail in the usual way where the buildd sends a log of the failed build ready for inspection, but that they just don't upload any new builds to d-i.debian.org and there is to my knowledge no log whatsoever to show the reason of this. Note that I don't have access anymore to any buildd (was retracted without any notice) so I'm not very interested in pursuing why things don't work anymore... This is indeed suboptimal. :-( Would it be possible to give some (ideally more than one person to not create bottlenecks) persons from the d-i team access to the buildds where d-i daily builds are built so they can investigate these issues themself? Note also that it doesn't seem that any are still being done the way I originally set them up as none are from luk@host anymore... Can someone from the buildd team shed some more light on this. If this is documented somwhere and I just didn't find the right place you can also just point me to the docs. I'm also happy to just read the scripts actually triggering the builds. Are the builds scheduled by a cron job or is there something else scheduling the builds? On the buildds there was a separate chroot used to do the daily builds. The daily builds were done like 'documented' in the repository of d-i, nothing special. What do you mean by the documented way? Does it run some/all of the build targets in instaler/build or does it use the installer/debian/rules build-images target? Gaudenz -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. ~ Samuel Beckett ~ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
Excerpts from Christian PERRIER's message of Die Sep 14 06:55:28 +0200 2010: Quoting Joey Hess (jo...@debian.org): Christian PERRIER wrote: What I would also like to have is a way to easily *monitor* these daily builds. I'd be fine to do it myself on a regular basis if there's a way to get these status by mail (offline work most of the time during weeks). This is what I do with builds that are run on my own laptop, which already helps in catching build failures that happen on all arches (or on i386 only). OK, I finally got around to add some mail support to the daily aggregator script. It only sends a mail if there are old or failed builds. See the attached patch. There are still a few improvements possible: - The current output only has a link to the log of the failed build. I could also add the last lines of the build log. Do you think this might be helpful? - There are still some old builds. I'm still looking for someone to document the current autobuilder setup, so that it would become possible for others to investigate the cause for this and to add the relevant logs to the overview page. AFAIK currently only Luk knows how this works and it's not documented anywhere... (Luk, could you give me some pointers?) Gaudenz -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. ~ Samuel Beckett ~ 0001-Send-report-to-debian-boot-if-builds-fail-or-are-old.patch Description: Binary data signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
On 10/31/2010 04:49 PM, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: Excerpts from Christian PERRIER's message of Die Sep 14 06:55:28 +0200 2010: Quoting Joey Hess (jo...@debian.org): Christian PERRIER wrote: - There are still some old builds. I'm still looking for someone to document the current autobuilder setup, so that it would become possible for others to investigate the cause for this and to add the relevant logs to the overview page. AFAIK currently only Luk knows how this works and it's not documented anywhere... (Luk, could you give me some pointers?) Note that I don't have access anymore to any buildd (was retracted without any notice) so I'm not very interested in pursuing why things don't work anymore... Note also that it doesn't seem that any are still being done the way I originally set them up as none are from luk@host anymore... On the buildds there was a separate chroot used to do the daily builds. The daily builds were done like 'documented' in the repository of d-i, nothing special. On d-i.debian.org the builds are aggregated and old ones cleaned (for the ones on buildds); and statistics prepared (for all of them). Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ccdad21.8060...@debian.org
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
Quoting Gaudenz Steinlin (gaud...@debian.org): IMHO the most prominent gap is that there is no indication if a buildd fails to upload a log to d-i.debian.org at all. Like it is the case for several architectures since Aug 17th. I could not find any information about how the process of scheduling d-i builds on buildds works. Thus I don't know where to start to improve the status reporting there. I would really appreciate if someone could provide a pointer to existing documentation or scripts driving this process. Luk Claes has been the person setting this up on the buildds. So, I think having him in the loop is the best action. Luk? signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
On 09/22/2010 06:39 AM, Christian PERRIER wrote: Quoting Gaudenz Steinlin (gaud...@debian.org): IMHO the most prominent gap is that there is no indication if a buildd fails to upload a log to d-i.debian.org at all. Like it is the case for several architectures since Aug 17th. I could not find any information about how the process of scheduling d-i builds on buildds works. Thus I don't know where to start to improve the status reporting there. I would really appreciate if someone could provide a pointer to existing documentation or scripts driving this process. Luk Claes has been the person setting this up on the buildds. So, I think having him in the loop is the best action. Luk? The mips* buildds were changed, the promess was made to have the d-i builds moving to the new buildds, but due to several reasons that did not happen up to now. The hppa ones just failed miserably at the time and I did not get them working again, though I did not look since quite some time. The powerpc and s390 ones probably still work, though do not happen currently. I'll have a look when I'm back from VAC. Regarding the CD images it's probably a matter of changed machines (key issue). It does not currently happen differently on the buildd than on personal machines btw, it's just a separate environment on the buildd where the d-i builds happen as documented in the d-i repository. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c9a61df.90...@debian.org
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
Hi Otavio and others Sorry, but I fear I need a little bit more handholding on this. There are too many things I faild to figure out on myself... On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 20:02 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: Hello, On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Gaudenz Steinlin gaud...@debian.org wrote: Excerpts from Joey Hess's message of Mit Sep 15 21:26:06 +0200 2010: Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: I would volunteer to create some monitoring scripts and status pages for the daily builds if someone provides me with the information about how the daily builds on the autobuilders are currently done and where I can find the relevant scripts. Are you familiar with the existing status page at http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/build-logs.html? It depends on your definition of familiar. I just browsed around the scripts in /org/d-i.debian.org/scripts on ravel (aka d-i.debian.org). I found out how the status page is built, but the more interesting question why so many arches just stopped uploading any logs since around 08/17 is not answered there. The uploading of these images seems to be triggered from the outside. Another problem seems to be that the updateing of the webpage is out of sync at least with the building of the armel images. So it still marks the build_iop32x_netboot as failed although the build log behind the failed link is the log of a later build which did not fail at all. Is there a reason why this does not point to the timestamped directory (eg. http://people.debian.org/~joeyh/d-i/armel/images/20100914-23:25/overview.log) ? As Joey has said we do have a status page however as you noticed it has gabs that could be filled if you are willing to. Please provide the patches you believe could be useful for it. This is indeed a quite useful way of helping us. IMHO the most prominent gap is that there is no indication if a buildd fails to upload a log to d-i.debian.org at all. Like it is the case for several architectures since Aug 17th. I could not find any information about how the process of scheduling d-i builds on buildds works. Thus I don't know where to start to improve the status reporting there. I would really appreciate if someone could provide a pointer to existing documentation or scripts driving this process. OTOH there are certainly improvements possible to the current page. Do you have any whishlist items or a TODO file? From Christians mail I guess want feature request are failure reports by email. The best way to enable this is probably to send them to a PTS keyword where interested ppl can subscribe. AFAIK the only way to send custom mails to PTS keyword is to send it to sourcepackage_...@packages.qa.debian.org and these mails go to all people subscribed to the cvs keyword. Do you think it would be acceptable to send the reports to this address or do you think we would need another mechanism? AFAIK it's not possible to define custom keywords for the PTS. Gaudenz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1285100702.22357.28.ca...@tigerente.durcheinandertal.local
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
Excerpts from Cyril Brulebois's message of Die Sep 14 11:51:02 +0200 2010: Christian PERRIER bubu...@debian.org (14/09/2010): What I would also like to have is a way to easily *monitor* these daily builds. I had that in mind at some point, but I'm currently busy with some upstream work. Feel free to poke me in some days if you didn't find a volunteer at that point. I would volunteer to create some monitoring scripts and status pages for the daily builds if someone provides me with the information about how the daily builds on the autobuilders are currently done and where I can find the relevant scripts. Or some pointer to where this is documented. Gaudenz -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. ~ Samuel Beckett ~ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: I would volunteer to create some monitoring scripts and status pages for the daily builds if someone provides me with the information about how the daily builds on the autobuilders are currently done and where I can find the relevant scripts. Are you familiar with the existing status page at http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/build-logs.html? -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
Excerpts from Joey Hess's message of Mit Sep 15 21:26:06 +0200 2010: Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: I would volunteer to create some monitoring scripts and status pages for the daily builds if someone provides me with the information about how the daily builds on the autobuilders are currently done and where I can find the relevant scripts. Are you familiar with the existing status page at http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/build-logs.html? It depends on your definition of familiar. I just browsed around the scripts in /org/d-i.debian.org/scripts on ravel (aka d-i.debian.org). I found out how the status page is built, but the more interesting question why so many arches just stopped uploading any logs since around 08/17 is not answered there. The uploading of these images seems to be triggered from the outside. Another problem seems to be that the updateing of the webpage is out of sync at least with the building of the armel images. So it still marks the build_iop32x_netboot as failed although the build log behind the failed link is the log of a later build which did not fail at all. Is there a reason why this does not point to the timestamped directory (eg. http://people.debian.org/~joeyh/d-i/armel/images/20100914-23:25/overview.log) ? Gaudenz -- Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. ~ Samuel Beckett ~ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
Hello, On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Gaudenz Steinlin gaud...@debian.org wrote: Excerpts from Joey Hess's message of Mit Sep 15 21:26:06 +0200 2010: Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: I would volunteer to create some monitoring scripts and status pages for the daily builds if someone provides me with the information about how the daily builds on the autobuilders are currently done and where I can find the relevant scripts. Are you familiar with the existing status page at http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/build-logs.html? It depends on your definition of familiar. I just browsed around the scripts in /org/d-i.debian.org/scripts on ravel (aka d-i.debian.org). I found out how the status page is built, but the more interesting question why so many arches just stopped uploading any logs since around 08/17 is not answered there. The uploading of these images seems to be triggered from the outside. Another problem seems to be that the updateing of the webpage is out of sync at least with the building of the armel images. So it still marks the build_iop32x_netboot as failed although the build log behind the failed link is the log of a later build which did not fail at all. Is there a reason why this does not point to the timestamped directory (eg. http://people.debian.org/~joeyh/d-i/armel/images/20100914-23:25/overview.log) ? As Joey has said we do have a status page however as you noticed it has gabs that could be filled if you are willing to. Please provide the patches you believe could be useful for it. This is indeed a quite useful way of helping us. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: ota...@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktinpfxfhr8nft3mkmr-aecbbn-lseojgd6sfy...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
Quoting Joey Hess (jo...@debian.org): Christian PERRIER wrote: On the other hand, I think that other daily builds done in Joey Hess' home are very safe. Obviously, Joey has proven over years how reliable he can be and I don't see urgency to change this. Aside from not being in the building where that box is all the time, and it not coming back up automatically after power failures, and little issues like that. I'd prefer if armel builds were moved to the buildds. OK. Otavio ack'ed my suggestion yesterday on IRC and mentioned he would reping RM's about this (I'm not sure I understand why RM have to be involved for moving D-I builds but there's certainly a reason..:-)) What I would also like to have is a way to easily *monitor* these daily builds. I'd be fine to do it myself on a regular basis if there's a way to get these status by mail (offline work most of the time during weeks). This is what I do with builds that are run on my own laptop, which already helps in catching build failures that happen on all arches (or on i386 only). signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
Christian PERRIER bubu...@debian.org (14/09/2010): What I would also like to have is a way to easily *monitor* these daily builds. I had that in mind at some point, but I'm currently busy with some upstream work. Feel free to poke me in some days if you didn't find a volunteer at that point. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Status of some daily D-I builds
As I just mentioned on IRC, a few daily builds seem currently non optimal: - s390 builds still point to Frans' home on people.d.o. It's very sad to say this, of course, but that doesn't exist anymore..:-( - sparc builds point to Geert Stappers home and haven't been updated since July 12th Could we consider moving these to build daemons just like Luk did for other arches? If so, Luk you seem to be the more qualified person. Would you mind having a look at this? On the other hand, I think that other daily builds done in Joey Hess' home are very safe. Obviously, Joey has proven over years how reliable he can be and I don't see urgency to change this. -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
Op 20100913 om 22:16 schreef Christian PERRIER: As I just mentioned on IRC, a few daily builds seem currently non optimal: - s390 builds still point to Frans' home on people.d.o. It's very sad to say this, of course, but that doesn't exist anymore..:-( - sparc builds point to Geert Stappers home and haven't been updated since July 12th Oops, my check is on the _build_ result I will upgrade my check on _upload build_ result. Could we consider moving these to build daemons just like Luk did for other arches? If so, Luk you seem to be the more qualified person. Would you mind having a look at this? On the other hand, I think that other daily builds done in Joey Hess' home are very safe. Obviously, Joey has proven over years how reliable he can be and I don't see urgency to change this. Geert Stappers signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Status of some daily D-I builds
Christian PERRIER wrote: On the other hand, I think that other daily builds done in Joey Hess' home are very safe. Obviously, Joey has proven over years how reliable he can be and I don't see urgency to change this. Aside from not being in the building where that box is all the time, and it not coming back up automatically after power failures, and little issues like that. I'd prefer if armel builds were moved to the buildds. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
