Hi,

I’m not sure I recall who started sending the mails who warn us about
failed builds immediately. Anyway. That’s really appreciated, but -
there is a but - for packages that fail on all architectures, it means a
dozen of emails. For team-maintained packages, multiply by the number of
packages that fail, and the list is made harder to follow.

Would it be possible to batch the emails somehow? For example, if after
a few hours, all architectures that have tried to build the package
failed, send a mail that says it failed everywhere.

It would also be nice to distinguish between failures at the package
installation time, and failures that happen inside dpkg-buildpackage. In
the former case, some action is required, but often not by the package
maintainer.

Thanks,
--
.'`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in
`- future understand things� -- Jörg Schilling

Josselin Mouette wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I’m not sure I recall who started sending the mails who warn us about
> failed builds immediately. Anyway. That’s really appreciated,

It was announced on the last Misc Developer News.

Cheers,
--
Raphael Geissert - Debian Developer
www.debian.org - get.debian.net


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

2010/1/28 Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org>:

> Would it be possible to batch the emails somehow? For example, if after
> a few hours, all architectures that have tried to build the package
> failed, send a mail that says it failed everywhere.

Sounds like a good idea. I'd speculate that it might be hard to
implement, unless the notification mails were delayed until all arches
have tried the package (or are in BD-Uninstallable state). Probably
the debian-wb-team list is the appropriate place to request this.

> It would also be nice to distinguish between failures at the package
> installation time, and failures that happen inside dpkg-buildpackage. In
> the former case, some action is required, but often not by the package
> maintainer.

Wouldn't the new BD-Uninstallable state catch these failures, or are
we talking about bugs in the maintainer scripts of the Build-Depends
tree? For the former, I imagine no mails are sent. For the latter, the
package maintainer could file RC bugs to get the problem fixed or NMU
if there already is one.

--
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:08:58PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm not sure I recall who started sending the mails who warn us about
> failed builds immediately. Anyway. That's really appreciated, but -
> there is a but - for packages that fail on all architectures, it means a
> dozen of emails. For team-maintained packages, multiply by the number of
> packages that fail, and the list is made harder to follow.
>
> Would it be possible to batch the emails somehow? For example, if after
> a few hours, all architectures that have tried to build the package
> failed, send a mail that says it failed everywhere.

I'm sure that if you give us a patch for that, we'll be happy to
use it. I suggest you file a bug against buildd.debian.org.

> It would also be nice to distinguish between failures at the package
> installation time, and failures that happen inside dpkg-buildpackage. In
> the former case, some action is required, but often not by the package
> maintainer.

Are you getting mails about the package installation time? That
shouldn't happen as far as I know. From which arch/buildd are you
seeing that? We do atleast see the difference between those,
and they do get reacted on differently by the current
buildd/sbuild package that we use.


Kurt


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Le samedi 30 janvier 2010 Ã* 16:58 +0100, Kurt Roeckx a écrit :
> Are you getting mails about the package installation time? That
> shouldn't happen as far as I know. From which arch/buildd are you
> seeing that? We do atleast see the difference between those,
> and they do get reacted on differently by the current
> buildd/sbuild package that we use.

For example I received a mail about that:

https://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=totem&arch=s390&ver=2.29.4-1&stamp=1264851776&file=log

Cheers,
--
.'`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in
`- future understand things� -- Jörg Schilling

On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 05:05:26PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 30 janvier 2010 à 16:58 +0100, Kurt Roeckx a écrit :
> > Are you getting mails about the package installation time? That
> > shouldn't happen as far as I know. From which arch/buildd are you
> > seeing that? We do atleast see the difference between those,
> > and they do get reacted on differently by the current
> > buildd/sbuild package that we use.
>
> For example I received a mail about that:
>
> https://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=totem&arch=s390&ver=2.29.4-1&stamp=1264851776&file=log

It ended up calling dpkg-buildpackage while maybe it shouldn't
have. I think the packages for experimental also run with a
different config file, and that it might require some more work
to get it working properly.


Kurt


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org