Bug#886450: tracker.debian.org: Separate subscription for official and non-official architectures builds
On 2018-01-16 10:28, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: On 16/01/18 09:41, Philipp Kern wrote: ignore_arches: mips64el hurd-i386 alpha hppa m68k powerpcspe ppc64 sh4 sparc64 x32 Can we drop mips64el from that list? It's been a supported architecture for a while. [...] I suppose the actual delta would be +kfreebsd-amd64 +kfreebsd-i386 +ia64 +powerpc, right? Indeed. -ignore_arches: mips64el hurd-i386 alpha hppa m68k powerpcspe ppc64 sh4 sparc64 x32 +ignore_arches: hurd-i386 kfreebsd-amd64 kfreebsd-i386 alpha hppa ia64 m68k powerpc powerpcspe ppc64 sh4 sparc64 x32 Done. Kind regards and thanks Philipp Kern
Bug#886450: tracker.debian.org: Separate subscription for official and non-official architectures builds
On 16/01/18 09:41, Philipp Kern wrote: > On 15.01.2018 12:08, Raphael Hertzog wrote: >> Hence my suggestion (to which I must add X-Debian-Package now): >> >> X-Debian: buildd.debian.org >> X-Debian-Package: firefox >> X-Debian-Architecture: powerpc >> X-Debian-Suite: sid >> X-Debian-State: failed >> >> I have just taught tracker.debian.org to recognize the above so you can >> immediately drop the setting of "X-Distro-Tracker*" provided that you set >> X-Debian to buildd.debian.org and X-Debian-Package to the source package >> name. > > I have added this now and I'll monitor throughout the day if it actually > works as expected. > > I didn't do pochu's suggestion of official/unofficial yet, mostly > because that list isn't technically known to the script and it seems we > already skip notifications for the following architectures: > > ignore_arches: mips64el hurd-i386 alpha hppa m68k powerpcspe ppc64 sh4 > sparc64 x32 Can we drop mips64el from that list? It's been a supported architecture for a while. > So a solution here would be to just mirror the actual list of > unsupported ports there, if we want that. But sending out new > notifications for these would be a big behavior change (i.e. by > definition it should only send out mails for supported ones). Makes sense. Those could be sent as well, but filtered by the tracker service to a different keyword, so the user can choose whether to subscribe to those or not. > I suppose the actual delta would be +kfreebsd-amd64 +kfreebsd-i386 +ia64 > +powerpc, right? Indeed. Cheers, Emilio
Bug#886450: tracker.debian.org: Separate subscription for official and non-official architectures builds
On 15.01.2018 12:08, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Hence my suggestion (to which I must add X-Debian-Package now): > > X-Debian: buildd.debian.org > X-Debian-Package: firefox > X-Debian-Architecture: powerpc > X-Debian-Suite: sid > X-Debian-State: failed > > I have just taught tracker.debian.org to recognize the above so you can > immediately drop the setting of "X-Distro-Tracker*" provided that you set > X-Debian to buildd.debian.org and X-Debian-Package to the source package name. I have added this now and I'll monitor throughout the day if it actually works as expected. I didn't do pochu's suggestion of official/unofficial yet, mostly because that list isn't technically known to the script and it seems we already skip notifications for the following architectures: ignore_arches: mips64el hurd-i386 alpha hppa m68k powerpcspe ppc64 sh4 sparc64 x32 So a solution here would be to just mirror the actual list of unsupported ports there, if we want that. But sending out new notifications for these would be a big behavior change (i.e. by definition it should only send out mails for supported ones). I suppose the actual delta would be +kfreebsd-amd64 +kfreebsd-i386 +ia64 +powerpc, right? Kind regards Philipp Kern
Bug#886450: tracker.debian.org: Separate subscription for official and non-official architectures builds
Hi,
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > Will you do it soon or is there a place where we should record this
> > wishlist?
> I don't mind just doing it. I just looked at the current code and it
> already sets this:
>
> msg['X-Distro-Tracker-Package'] = buildlog.package
> msg['X-Distro-Tracker-Keyword'] = 'build'
>
> Since 2015. And for some reason I didn't spot that when I replied
> originally. Given that, what about adding
> X-Distro-Tracker-Build-{Architecture,State,Suite}? And do you still need
> the X-Debian in this case?
Well, this was done that way so that you can mail to
dispa...@tracker.debian.org instead of
dispatch+_bu...@tracker.debian.org but the approach I have been
following lately is rather to teach tracker.debian.org how to recognize
the different emails and I would much prefer if this was done based
on headers that are not distro-tracker specific.
The standard that is building slowly (following DAK's lead) is this one:
X-Debian:
X-Debian-Package:
Hence my suggestion (to which I must add X-Debian-Package now):
X-Debian: buildd.debian.org
X-Debian-Package: firefox
X-Debian-Architecture: powerpc
X-Debian-Suite: sid
X-Debian-State: failed
I have just taught tracker.debian.org to recognize the above so you can
immediately drop the setting of "X-Distro-Tracker*" provided that you set
X-Debian to buildd.debian.org and X-Debian-Package to the source package name.
https://salsa.debian.org/qa/distro-tracker/commit/bf9b5fbbda7d691f655449ae2ece8013b27a15ce
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer
Support Debian LTS: https://www.freexian.com/services/debian-lts.html
Learn to master Debian: https://debian-handbook.info/get/
Bug#886450: tracker.debian.org: Separate subscription for official and non-official architectures builds
On 14/01/18 17:42, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 01/09/2018 01:58 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Jan 2018, Philipp Kern wrote:
I'm putting debian-wb-t...@lists.debian.org in copy to hear their thoughts
about this. Do you think it's possible to add headers like:
X-Debian: buildd.debian.org
X-Debian-Architecture: powerpc
X-Debian-Suite: sid
X-Debian-State: failed
>>>
>>> this is trivial. We can lift anything that's in the body of the email to
>>> the headers.
>>
>> Great, that will solve the short term problem of Mike and will also enable
>> the package tracker to better filter emails if we want to follow up on his
>> suggestion.
>>
>> Will you do it soon or is there a place where we should record this
>> wishlist?
> I don't mind just doing it. I just looked at the current code and it
> already sets this:
>
> msg['X-Distro-Tracker-Package'] = buildlog.package
> msg['X-Distro-Tracker-Keyword'] = 'build'
>
> Since 2015. And for some reason I didn't spot that when I replied
> originally. Given that, what about adding
> X-Distro-Tracker-Build-{Architecture,State,Suite}? And do you still need
> the X-Debian in this case?
Probably add one more header, -Architecture-Support (or whatever), with possible
values 'release' and 'port'. That way users that want to filter non-release
architectures don't need to keep updating their filter list.
Cheers,
Emilio
Bug#886450: tracker.debian.org: Separate subscription for official and non-official architectures builds
On 01/09/2018 01:58 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Jan 2018, Philipp Kern wrote:
>>> I'm putting debian-wb-t...@lists.debian.org in copy to hear their thoughts
>>> about this. Do you think it's possible to add headers like:
>>>
>>> X-Debian: buildd.debian.org
>>> X-Debian-Architecture: powerpc
>>> X-Debian-Suite: sid
>>> X-Debian-State: failed
>>
>> this is trivial. We can lift anything that's in the body of the email to
>> the headers.
>
> Great, that will solve the short term problem of Mike and will also enable
> the package tracker to better filter emails if we want to follow up on his
> suggestion.
>
> Will you do it soon or is there a place where we should record this
> wishlist?
I don't mind just doing it. I just looked at the current code and it
already sets this:
msg['X-Distro-Tracker-Package'] = buildlog.package
msg['X-Distro-Tracker-Keyword'] = 'build'
Since 2015. And for some reason I didn't spot that when I replied
originally. Given that, what about adding
X-Distro-Tracker-Build-{Architecture,State,Suite}? And do you still need
the X-Debian in this case?
Kind regards and thanks
Philipp Kern
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#886450: tracker.debian.org: Separate subscription for official and non-official architectures builds
Hi, On Mon, 08 Jan 2018, Philipp Kern wrote: > > I'm putting debian-wb-t...@lists.debian.org in copy to hear their thoughts > > about this. Do you think it's possible to add headers like: > > > > X-Debian: buildd.debian.org > > X-Debian-Architecture: powerpc > > X-Debian-Suite: sid > > X-Debian-State: failed > > this is trivial. We can lift anything that's in the body of the email to > the headers. Great, that will solve the short term problem of Mike and will also enable the package tracker to better filter emails if we want to follow up on his suggestion. Will you do it soon or is there a place where we should record this wishlist? > > Maybe the behaviour of the mail notification could also be rate-limited to > > one per day per version per arch... > > That's harder because this would require a different mode of execution. > Although I wonder if there would be some way to attack this on the > buildd side. The retries are obviously way too often: The only reason > the spam isn't even more frequently sent is that the buildds back off > themselves if a build failed on them by keeping a list locally. So it's > a function of how many buildds exist for an arch. Another approach might be to not send any mail if the former try was already a failure. That way you get a single mail per new failure. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Support Debian LTS: https://www.freexian.com/services/debian-lts.html Learn to master Debian: https://debian-handbook.info/get/
Bug#886450: tracker.debian.org: Separate subscription for official and non-official architectures builds
Hi, On 08.01.2018 15:41, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Sat, 06 Jan 2018, Mike Hommey wrote: >> I like to subscribe to the `build` keyword for some of my packages, >> essentially to get notifications of build failures. The sad result is >> that because some buildds are dumb, I'm being spammed by them trying >> and failing to build over and over. Which would be kind of okay if those >> were builds for official architectures supported by debian, but they >> aren't. >> >> So I would very much be interested by a separation between build for >> official architectures and build for unofficial architectures. > > Thanks for the report, but I doubt that this will be implemented > in tracker.debian.org anytime soon. I would suggest that the buildd should > add headers so that people with very specific requirements can filter out > some mails with procmail or similar. > > I'm putting debian-wb-t...@lists.debian.org in copy to hear their thoughts > about this. Do you think it's possible to add headers like: > > X-Debian: buildd.debian.org > X-Debian-Architecture: powerpc > X-Debian-Suite: sid > X-Debian-State: failed this is trivial. We can lift anything that's in the body of the email to the headers. >> PS: In case you're interested: see all the Maybe-Failed on this page: >> https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=firefox=powerpc >> I received a mail for every single one of them. And they are mostly failed >> because of disk space... > > Maybe the behaviour of the mail notification could also be rate-limited to > one per day per version per arch... That's harder because this would require a different mode of execution. Although I wonder if there would be some way to attack this on the buildd side. The retries are obviously way too often: The only reason the spam isn't even more frequently sent is that the buildds back off themselves if a build failed on them by keeping a list locally. So it's a function of how many buildds exist for an arch. Now in the case of firefox it's pretty sad across arches anyway: https://packages.debian.org/unstable/firefox -- otherwise I would've suggested that maybe we really should throttle new packages or something. But the binaries are still there. I suppose what's happening here is that buildd treats the exit of sbuild as an infrastructure failure and hence keeps retrying. But none of the buildds can build it. Did you file a bug somewhere to raise chroot disk space? Kind regards Philipp Kern
Bug#886450: tracker.debian.org: Separate subscription for official and non-official architectures builds
Hello Mike, On Sat, 06 Jan 2018, Mike Hommey wrote: > I like to subscribe to the `build` keyword for some of my packages, > essentially to get notifications of build failures. The sad result is > that because some buildds are dumb, I'm being spammed by them trying > and failing to build over and over. Which would be kind of okay if those > were builds for official architectures supported by debian, but they > aren't. > > So I would very much be interested by a separation between build for > official architectures and build for unofficial architectures. Thanks for the report, but I doubt that this will be implemented in tracker.debian.org anytime soon. I would suggest that the buildd should add headers so that people with very specific requirements can filter out some mails with procmail or similar. I'm putting debian-wb-t...@lists.debian.org in copy to hear their thoughts about this. Do you think it's possible to add headers like: X-Debian: buildd.debian.org X-Debian-Architecture: powerpc X-Debian-Suite: sid X-Debian-State: failed > PS: In case you're interested: see all the Maybe-Failed on this page: > https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=firefox=powerpc > I received a mail for every single one of them. And they are mostly failed > because of disk space... Maybe the behaviour of the mail notification could also be rate-limited to one per day per version per arch... Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Support Debian LTS: https://www.freexian.com/services/debian-lts.html Learn to master Debian: https://debian-handbook.info/get/
Bug#886450: tracker.debian.org: Separate subscription for official and non-official architectures builds
Package: tracker.debian.org Severity: wishlist I like to subscribe to the `build` keyword for some of my packages, essentially to get notifications of build failures. The sad result is that because some buildds are dumb, I'm being spammed by them trying and failing to build over and over. Which would be kind of okay if those were builds for official architectures supported by debian, but they aren't. So I would very much be interested by a separation between build for official architectures and build for unofficial architectures. Mike PS: In case you're interested: see all the Maybe-Failed on this page: https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=firefox=powerpc I received a mail for every single one of them. And they are mostly failed because of disk space...
