Mike Fedyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> I was thinking of having support in the buildd to fetch source, check
> a local patch archive for fixes, patch source, build package, add
> patch to each debs /usr/share/doc/package/.
>
> Would that satisfy the GPL or othe
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Mike Fedyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050321 00:25]:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:40:43AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
If we
Mike Fedyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andreas Barth wrote:
>
>>* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050321 00:25]:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:40:43AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
>>>
>>>
If we don't wait for an arch, it gets out-of-sync quite soon, and due to
e.g. legal requir
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050321 00:25]:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:40:43AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
If we don't wait for an arch, it gets out-of-sync quite soon, and due to
e.g. legal requirements, we can't release that arch. (In other words, if
an arch
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050321 00:25]:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:40:43AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > If we don't wait for an arch, it gets out-of-sync quite soon, and due to
> > e.g. legal requirements, we can't release that arch. (In other words, if
> > an arch is too long ig
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 12:35:28AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> 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
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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...
Of course, there was no
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 a
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:40:43AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> If we don't wait for an arch, it gets out-of-sync quite soon, and due to
> e.g. legal requirements, we can't release that arch. (In other words, if
> an arch is too long ignored for testing, we should remove it, as we
> can't release
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:56:10AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> I would like to see some stats showing on how many days in the last
> >> year an arch reached 0 needs-build. I highly doubt that any arch
> >> managed to do it every day troughout the last year.
> > You know why goals are
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:19:15PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 00:10 -0800, schreef Steve Langasek:
> > Well, my objection is basically the same as Thomas's here -- all package
> > builds are *not* equally urgent,
> Of course not, that is exactly my point.
> But from the
On Friday 18 March 2005 11:35, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > Porters who have worked on getting an arch to REGUALR status are in a
> > much better position (demonstrated commitment, technical aptness and
> > experiencewise) to solve those problems than random-joe-developer.
>
> I have no idea
Peter 'p2' De Schrijver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Except the possibility to profit from the release team's efforts,
>> and to create an actually supported release. It is not reasonable
>> to believe a small porter team can do security updates for a
>> unstable snapshot when a task of similiar
> Porters who have worked on getting an arch to REGUALR status are in a much
> better position (demonstrated commitment, technical aptness and
> experiencewise) to solve those problems than random-joe-developer.
>
I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
> Always remember that the main r
> Except the possibility to profit from the release team's efforts,
> and to create an actually supported release. It is not reasonable
> to believe a small porter team can do security updates for a
> unstable snapshot when a task of similiar size already overloads
> the stable security team.
>
N
On Thursday 17 March 2005 23:44, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 08:22:04PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > * Mike Fedyk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050316 20:55]:
> > >> Andreas Barth wrote:
> > >> >If that happens for a too
Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
[snip]
> Why would a port release after the main release ?
Probably to fix up a few remaining arch-specific bugs.
> Why, if debian doesn't
> care about the non-release archs, would the porters even bother to
> follow the release arch sources and not just release whe
* Mike Fedyk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050317 19:30]:
> Andreas Barth wrote:
> >If we don't wait for an arch, it gets out-of-sync quite soon, and due to
> >e.g. legal requirements, we can't release that arch. (In other words, if
> >an arch is too long ignored for testing, we should remove it, as we
> >c
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 08:22:04PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > * Mike Fedyk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050316 20:55]:
> >> Andreas Barth wrote:
> >> >If that happens for a too long period, we might consider such an
> >> >architecture to be too slo
On Thursday 17 March 2005 20:22, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
[very sensible suggestions removed]
> Any problems with that?
Not with the procedure in itself. I just want to chip in, that it is (not
only) my opinion, that a REGULAR Debian release cannot allow delaying
security updates and there
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Mike Fedyk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050316 20:55]:
>> Andreas Barth wrote:
>> >If that happens for a too long period, we might consider such an
>> >architecture to be too slow to keep up, and will eventually discuss
>> >about kicking it out of the architec
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Mike Fedyk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050316 20:55]:
Andreas Barth wrote:
If that happens for a too long period, we might consider such an
architecture to be too slow to keep up, and will eventually discuss
about kicking it out of the architectures
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Mike Fedyk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050316 20:55]:
> > Andreas Barth wrote:
> > >If that happens for a too long period, we might consider such an
> > >architecture to be too slow to keep up, and will eventually discuss
> > >about kicking it out of the architectures we wait for
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:44:34 +0100, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Op di, 15-03-2005 te 16:19 -0500, schreef Anthony DeRobertis:
> > Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >
> > | You misunderstood. I don't fight generic changes to the order; I just
> > | don't think it would be a good thing that a
* Mike Fedyk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050316 20:55]:
> Andreas Barth wrote:
> >If that happens for a too long period, we might consider such an
> >architecture to be too slow to keep up, and will eventually discuss
> >about kicking it out of the architectures we wait for testing migration
> >at all, or
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Matthew Palmer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050313 01:05]:
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 03:12:12PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Er, packages *do* eventually get built; they just don't get built in any
kind of FIFO order.
Er, no.
Hi, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> I think the queue
> needs to be as FIFO as possible for fairness and "principle of least
> surprise" sake.
See my patch on d-d (also mailed to the ftpmasters), which inserts "age in
queue" (actually, timestamp of last status change, but that's
more-or-less equivalent)
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
That's not to say that a request to prioritize a package is to be
ignored; however, the power of deciding which packages get built first
should be with those that actually build the packages, rather than with
those who want their packages to be built. The former are expected
Hello Wouter
On 2005-03-16 Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> That's not to say that a request to prioritize a package is to be
> ignored; however, the power of deciding which packages get built first
> should be with those that actually build the packages, rather than with
> those who want their packages t
Op di, 15-03-2005 te 16:19 -0500, schreef Anthony DeRobertis:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> | You misunderstood. I don't fight generic changes to the order; I just
> | don't think it would be a good thing that any random developer could
> | prioritize his pet package.
> |
>
> Any random developer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
| You misunderstood. I don't fight generic changes to the order; I just
| don't think it would be a good thing that any random developer could
| prioritize his pet package.
|
Any random developer already has root on X thousand deb
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 17:59 +0100, schreef Goswin von Brederlow:
>> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Op vr, 11-03-2005 te 19:14 -0800, schreef Steve Langasek:
>> >> The queue ordering is entirely automatic, and AIUI the queue(s) is (
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050314 15:35]:
>> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > * Hamish Moffatt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050314 01:45]:
>> >> On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:16:56PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> >> > Our goal is tha
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 14:42:33 +0100, Ingo Juergensmann
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Been there, done that.
> The short answer: "We don't want anyone else to play in our playground!"
> The longer answer: "More machines mean more work for the the buildd admin.
> Additional buildd admins for those arch
Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 17:59 +0100, schreef Goswin von Brederlow:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Op vr, 11-03-2005 te 19:14 -0800, schreef Steve Langasek:
> >> The queue ordering is entirely automatic, and AIUI the queue(s) is (are)
> >> sorted by:
> >>
> >> - target suite
> >
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Op vr, 11-03-2005 te 19:14 -0800, schreef Steve Langasek:
>> The queue ordering is entirely automatic, and AIUI the queue(s) is (are)
>> sorted by:
>>
>> - target suite
>- previous compilation state (already built packages are prioritized
> above
On Monday 14 March 2005 15:31, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > * Hamish Moffatt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050314 01:45]:
> >> On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:16:56PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> >> > Our goal is that the queue gets empty from time to time, and so,
* Goswin von Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050314 15:35]:
> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > * Hamish Moffatt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050314 01:45]:
> >> On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:16:56PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> >> > Our goal is that the queue gets empty from time to time, and so,
[debian-release dropped]
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But do you notice when the same packages keep showing up at the end of
> the queue for weeks? The queue can be as small as 1 package inbetween
> and that 1 package could still never get build.
Just out of curiosity, what
On Mon, March 14, 2005 15:09, Goswin von Brederlow said:
>>> People
>>> should stop repeating the fiction then that "just wait" means "your
>>> package will eventually get built".
> It usualy is. It might not be. And it can be an awfully long wait.
> The last one is the problem. The first two not.
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Hamish Moffatt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050314 01:45]:
>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:16:56PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> > Our goal is that the queue gets empty from time to time, and so,
>> > priority shouldn't prevent a package from being built.
>>
>
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Op za, 12-03-2005 te 15:01 -0800, schreef Thomas Bushnell BSG:
>> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Remember that the buildd queue is not FIFO at all. The queue has a
>> > completly static order. Any changes to the queue are jus
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:00:52AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Hamish Moffatt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050314 01:55]:
> > Given how low hamradio (and the like) are prioritised, I suggest that we
> > get smarter about 'tesing' and omit some sections on some architectures.
>
> We won't omit some sec
Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 00:10 -0800, schreef Steve Langasek:
> Well, my objection is basically the same as Thomas's here -- all package
> builds are *not* equally urgent,
Of course not, that is exactly my point.
But from the POV of a package's maintainer, all fixes are more or less
urgent. If some
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 08:50:15PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> How about geda-gschem? Waiting on arm for a couple of weeks now.
> Holding up migration of all of geda* on all architectures.
> I couldn't work out where wanna-build CVS is hosted so I couldn't
> actually check the order to see wher
* Hamish Moffatt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050314 01:55]:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:01:59AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > It is a highly ordered list, more or less libs+base first, than devel,
> > shells,
> > perl, python. After that graphics, admin, utils. Just to look at the
> > other side of th
* Hamish Moffatt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050314 01:45]:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:16:56PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Our goal is that the queue gets empty from time to time, and so,
> > priority shouldn't prevent a package from being built.
>
> How often should the queue be emptied, or when w
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:37:56AM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:49:34AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> > Given how low hamradio (and the like) are prioritised, I suggest that we
> > get smarter about 'tesing' and omit some sections on some architectures.
> > Frank
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:15:13PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Given how low hamradio (and the like) are prioritised, I suggest that we
> > get smarter about 'tesing' and omit some sections on some architectures.
>
> I don't think those sec
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:07:29PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > None of the documentation calls it a 'queue', in fact; only people not
> > really involved in buildd stuff do.
>
> Does that include you? In two recent messages, you referred
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:43:54AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> s390 is also rising steeply.
gcc problems and non-responding ftp-masters for the new buildd.
Bastian
--
Those who hate and fight must stop themselves -- otherwise it is not stopped.
-- Spock, "Day of the Dove", st
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:36:39PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op vr, 11-03-2005 te 19:14 -0800, schreef Steve Langasek:
> > The queue ordering is entirely automatic, and AIUI the queue(s) is (are)
> > sorted by:
> > - target suite
>- previous compilation state (already built packages are
[please don't cc: me on this thread, one copy is plenty, thanks; and
please don't cc: debian-release unless there's a specific reason it's
on-topic there, which explaining wanna-build is not. ;)]
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:30:45PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op vr, 11-03-2005 te 17:03 -0800, s
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> None of the documentation calls it a 'queue', in fact; only people not
> really involved in buildd stuff do.
Does that include you? In two recent messages, you referred to it as
a queue.
> > I can see excellent reasons why age in the list shouldn't
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I agree with the w-b maintainers. The queue order is only interesting in
> the case where there is a backlog; in other cases, packages are usually
> built rather fast. In the case where there is a backlog, those trying to
> fix the architecture (usuall
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It means that when one is told "just wait, your package will get
> > rebuilt"; it is not necessarily true at all. There is no upper bound
> > at all on time to wait for building, and that's a disaster.
>
> This paragraph assumes nobody ever looks t
Op za, 12-03-2005 te 21:12 -0800, schreef Thomas Bushnell BSG:
> Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If the queue is non-zero for a longer time, there is a problem in buildd
> > machine power, and the wanna-build admin has choosen to in this case
> > allocate the buildd power t
Op vr, 11-03-2005 te 19:14 -0800, schreef Steve Langasek:
> The queue ordering is entirely automatic, and AIUI the queue(s) is (are)
> sorted by:
>
> - target suite
- previous compilation state (already built packages are prioritized
above packages never built for the target architecture)
> -
Op vr, 11-03-2005 te 17:03 -0800, schreef Thomas Bushnell BSG:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Re-uploading a package to provoke a buildd response is counterproductive,
> > *particularly* when the package is already in Needs-Build on the missing
> > architectures. Re-uploading
Op za, 12-03-2005 te 15:19 +1100, schreef Matthew Palmer:
> I'm trying to work out why package *section* matters at all.
This is simply an attempt to avoid as much
needs-build->building->dep-wait cycles as possible; packages that are
usually build-dependencies are built before packages that are us
Op za, 12-03-2005 te 15:01 -0800, schreef Thomas Bushnell BSG:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Remember that the buildd queue is not FIFO at all. The queue has a
> > completly static order. Any changes to the queue are just packages
> > hiding because they are not "needs-b
Op za, 12-03-2005 te 16:24 -0800, schreef Thomas Bushnell BSG:
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Practically, buildd admins can notice a longer-than-usual queue and throw
> > hardware at the problem, and that seems to work well enough, and we could
> > reduce the rate of package i
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:49:34AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Given how low hamradio (and the like) are prioritised, I suggest that we
> get smarter about 'tesing' and omit some sections on some architectures.
> Frankly there are not likely to be any users for hamradio on s390, mips*
> arm, or
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Given how low hamradio (and the like) are prioritised, I suggest that we
> get smarter about 'tesing' and omit some sections on some architectures.
I don't think those sections are causing the problem. There are also
not so many uploads for them. The
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:01:59AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> It is a highly ordered list, more or less libs+base first, than devel, shells,
> perl, python. After that graphics, admin, utils. Just to look at the
> other side of the sorting order, at the end of the list is hamradio,
> non-US and
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:16:56PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Our goal is that the queue gets empty from time to time, and so,
> priority shouldn't prevent a package from being built.
How often should the queue be emptied, or when will an architecture be
declarared not-keeping-up?
According to
* Matthew Palmer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050313 23:50]:
> I think I slightly misunderstood the "ordering by section" bit -- I was
> assuming an alphabetical ordering by section. So once base and libs have
> had their priority building, what's the ordering after that? Alphabetical
> by section, or do
* Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050313 23:15]:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050312 02:05]:
> > If, perhaps, there was a clear indication of the buildd ordering
> > policy, then it could be properly used. Until then, I go on the basis
> > of guesswork.
> The ordering applied
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Because we want packages in base to be preferred, as well as packages in
> libs.
I think that is a given, but it's not uploads to base and libs that
are hosing the recompilation of gnucash at present.
I think it's worth looking at the perverse incentiv
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:44:33AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:17:52PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Because we want packages in base to be preferred, as well as packages in
> > libs.
>
> I think I slightly misunderstood the "ordering by section" bit -- I was
> assu
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:17:52PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Matthew Palmer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050312 05:25]:
> > On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 07:14:35PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > The queue ordering is entirely automatic, and AIUI the queue(s) is (are)
> > > sorted by:
> > >
> > > - ta
* Matthew Palmer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050313 01:05]:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 03:12:12PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Er, packages *do* eventually get built; they just don't get built in any
> > kind of FIFO order.
> Er, no. Unless there's some sort of aging process (not yet described in the
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:25:33PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > More machines can catch up faster than few can do.
> > When one machine out of a dozen machines is unavailable, it has less impact
> > than one machine failure out of two machines, although the chances will
> > raise that a machin
* Ingo Juergensmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050312 14:15]:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 02:06:24PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> > As it has been said earlier, the machines are back, but just need to
> > catch up. So just waiting might be the easiest thing to do.
> More machines can catch up fast
* Matthew Palmer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050312 05:25]:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 07:14:35PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > The queue ordering is entirely automatic, and AIUI the queue(s) is (are)
> > sorted by:
> >
> > - target suite
> > - package priority
> > - package section
> > - p
* Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050312 04:25]:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The queue ordering is entirely automatic, and AIUI the queue(s) is (are)
> > sorted by:
> >
> > - target suite
> > - package priority
> > - package section
> > - package name
> >
* Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050312 02:05]:
> Since the all but one of the other arch buildd's have empty
> needs-build queues, it is harmless to force them to execute a
> recompile and costs no scarce resources. I did check this before
> uploading.
Even in the case the buildds oth
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 05:19:25PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> And last I feel the sorting by name is actualy harmfull. That should
> be exchanged with the time of upload, i.e. FIFO if the rest matches.
> We all know FIFO isn't the best but it is simple, fair, predictable
> and does not
[remove -release, nothing they can do about it]
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 03:01:28PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> > Remember that the buildd queue is not FIFO at all. The queue has a
>> > comp
Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If the queue is non-zero for a longer time, there is a problem in buildd
> machine power, and the wanna-build admin has choosen to in this case
> allocate the buildd power that remains to the building of packages that
> are of higher priority, re
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:43:41AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 04:24:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > What are these "relatively effective workarounds"?
>
> Not being a buildd admin, I have no idea as to the specifics, but I infer
> the existence of these worka
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 04:24:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Practically, buildd admins can notice a longer-than-usual queue and throw
> > hardware at the problem, and that seems to work well enough, and we could
> > reduce the rate of pac
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Practically, buildd admins can notice a longer-than-usual queue and throw
> hardware at the problem, and that seems to work well enough, and we could
> reduce the rate of package inflow through various means, but the problem
> still remains -- the queue
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 02:06:24PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> Hi Hamish,
>
> On Saturday, 12 Mar 2005, you wrote:
> > Is there anything that can be done to help with arm/mipsel?
> As it has been said earlier, the machines are back, but just need to
> catch up. So just waiting might be the
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 03:12:12PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 03:01:28PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > Remember that the buildd queue is not FIFO at all. The queue has a
> > > completly static order. Any c
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Er, packages *do* eventually get built; they just don't get built in any
> kind of FIFO order.
This is not true. The current system has an unbounded wait time. For
example, the effect of the Bug Squashing Party, which causes a bunch
of uploads to b
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 03:01:28PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Remember that the buildd queue is not FIFO at all. The queue has a
> > completly static order. Any changes to the queue are just packages
> > hiding because they are not "nee
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Remember that the buildd queue is not FIFO at all. The queue has a
> completly static order. Any changes to the queue are just packages
> hiding because they are not "needs-build". I consider that the biggest
> flaw of all in wanna-build.
This is
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 03:19:23PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>> [Probably going a bit off track for -release; MFT to -devel]
>
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 07:14:35PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > The queue ordering is entirely automatic, and AIUI
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 02:26:43PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> > > As it has been said earlier, the machines are back, but just need to
> > > catch up. So just waiting might be the easiest thing to do.
> > More machines can catch up faster than few can do.
> > When one machine out of a doz
Hi Ingo,
On Saturday, 12 Mar 2005, you wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 02:06:24PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
>
> > As it has been said earlier, the machines are back, but just need to
> > catch up. So just waiting might be the easiest thing to do.
>
> More machines can catch up faster tha
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 02:06:24PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> As it has been said earlier, the machines are back, but just need to
> catch up. So just waiting might be the easiest thing to do.
More machines can catch up faster than few can do.
When one machine out of a dozen machines is
Hi Hamish,
On Saturday, 12 Mar 2005, you wrote:
> Is there anything that can be done to help with arm/mipsel?
Not uploading any new packages *g*
As it has been said earlier, the machines are back, but just need to
catch up. So just waiting might be the easiest thing to do.
Greetings
Martin
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 09:03:16PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 03:19:23PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > I'm trying to work out why package *section* matters at all. Package name
> > is a bit odd, too, but including the section in there is just totally
> > whack.
>
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 05:03:55PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Unfortunately, the queue ordering policy is unclear. I was guessing
> that the priority of the upload would have something to do with
> queueing policy.
>
> Since the all but one of the other arch buildd's have empty
> needs-b
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 03:19:23PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> [Probably going a bit off track for -release; MFT to -devel]
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 07:14:35PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > The queue ordering is entirely automatic, and AIUI the queue(s) is (are)
> > sorted by:
> > - target
[Probably going a bit off track for -release; MFT to -devel]
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 07:14:35PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The queue ordering is entirely automatic, and AIUI the queue(s) is (are)
> sorted by:
>
> - target suite
> - package priority
> - package section
> - package
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The queue ordering is entirely automatic, and AIUI the queue(s) is (are)
> sorted by:
>
> - target suite
> - package priority
> - package section
> - package name
>
> I personally believe it would be beneficial to prioritize by upload urge
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 05:03:55PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Re-uploading a package to provoke a buildd response is counterproductive,
> > *particularly* when the package is already in Needs-Build on the missing
> > architectures. Re-upload
Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 05:03:55PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > If, perhaps, there was a clear indication of the buildd ordering
> > policy, then it could be properly used. Until then, I go on the basis
> > of guesswork.
>
> You were
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
