buildd build order [Was: arm buildd holdup?]
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 10:52:41PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > Goswin wrote: > > Need-build is a good sign. http://buildd.net/ shows you are on place > > 37 out of 120. I suggest just waiting unless the buildd has stoped > > altogether. > > What is the ordering criteria on the buildds? According to the documentation: The packages are ordered by the following criteria (in this order): - out-of-date/uncompiled (the former come first) - priority (e.g. "required" before "optional") - section (alphabetically) - package name (alphabetically) Note the the priority has nothing do with with the urgency of the upload, it has no effect on it. The documentation seems to be a litte out of date, and before those 4, there is also a rule that lists all packages of higher priority than standard before the rest. Basicly, when there are no new/uncompiled packages involved, the order is by priority, then section, then alphabetically. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: buildd build order [Was: arm buildd holdup?]
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 01:55:51PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 10:52:41PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > What is the ordering criteria on the buildds? > > According to the documentation: > > The packages are ordered by the following criteria (in > this order): > > - out-of-date/uncompiled (the former come first) > - priority (e.g. "required" before "optional") > - section (alphabetically) > - package name (alphabetically) [..] > Basicly, when there are no new/uncompiled packages involved, the > order is by priority, then section, then alphabetically. That's useful to know, but doesn't seem to be correct in the arm case at least. 1. geda-gschem, speex and wipl are all out-of-date. 2. geda-gschem, speex and wipl are all priority low. 3. geda-gschem is section electronics. wipl is section net. speex is section sound. 4. geda-gschem < speex < wipl Yet wipl was uploaded yesterday and is #9, speex is #19, and geda-gschem is #36 (and slipping). What's the purpose of sorting by section in the ordering? I suppose the real problem is that there doesn't seem to be any progress on the queue. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: buildd build order [Was: arm buildd holdup?]
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 08:27:53AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > That's useful to know, but doesn't seem to be correct in the arm case at > least. > > 1. geda-gschem, speex and wipl are all out-of-date. > 2. geda-gschem, speex and wipl are all priority low. That's urgency low, and as I said, has nothing to do with it. > 3. geda-gschem is section electronics. >wipl is section net. >speex is section sound. > > 4. geda-gschem < speex < wipl Package: geda-gschem Priority: optional Section: electronics Package: speex Priority: optional Section: sound Package: wipl Priority: optional Section: net They're all priority optional, so we move to the section. The documentation says that section is ordered alphabetically, however, this is wrong. There is a list of the section each having a value. It's ordered like this: libs, debian-installer, base, devel, ..., net, ..., sound, ..., electronics, ... So we first get wipl, then speex, then geda-gschem. And this seems to agree with what you see. > What's the purpose of sorting by section in the ordering? They are also an ordering of what is most important. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: buildd build order [Was: arm buildd holdup?]
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 10:50:54PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 08:27:53AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > > > That's useful to know, but doesn't seem to be correct in the arm case at > > least. > > > > 1. geda-gschem, speex and wipl are all out-of-date. > > 2. geda-gschem, speex and wipl are all priority low. > > That's urgency low, and as I said, has nothing to do with it. You're right. I meant to say priority optional. > The documentation says that section is ordered alphabetically, > however, this is wrong. There is a list of the section each > having a value. OK, that explains the behaviour. > > What's the purpose of sorting by section in the ordering? > They are also an ordering of what is most important. Isn't the priority sufficient to do that? What makes sound more important than electronics? It's a bit demotivating to be continually trumped by equally optional packages, especially as packages are being added to the top of queue quicker than they're being pulled off. geda-gschem is now #52. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
