Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   Debian Development (http://www.linux-archive.org/debian-development/)
-   -   Sourceful uploads (http://www.linux-archive.org/debian-development/488788-sourceful-uploads.html)

Luk Claes 02-13-2011 05:13 PM

Sourceful uploads
 
On 02/13/2011 07:00 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On su, 2011-02-13 at 18:49 +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> I don;t think that is a good idea, there are way too many people not building
>> and testing their packages properly already, we don't want to give that work to
>> the buildd-admins...
>
> That's something I don't understand. If I upload a broken package, why
> should it be the buildd admin's job to deal with it? Should not I get
> notified of the error, and told to fix it?

I guess the notifying is what would become the buildd admin's job...

If people want to not have to build and upload binary packages, they
would better invest their time in setting up a central service that
would build for them and would help in uploading succesful builds
instead of complaining about thrown away binary packages IMHO.

Cheers

Luk


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4D581F5F.4080205@debian.org">http://lists.debian.org/4D581F5F.4080205@debian.org

Lars Wirzenius 02-13-2011 05:18 PM

Sourceful uploads
 
On su, 2011-02-13 at 19:13 +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> On 02/13/2011 07:00 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > On su, 2011-02-13 at 18:49 +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> >> I don;t think that is a good idea, there are way too many people not building
> >> and testing their packages properly already, we don't want to give that work to
> >> the buildd-admins...
> >
> > That's something I don't understand. If I upload a broken package, why
> > should it be the buildd admin's job to deal with it? Should not I get
> > notified of the error, and told to fix it?
>
> I guess the notifying is what would become the buildd admin's job...

Why is this a manual job, rather than automated?

> If people want to not have to build and upload binary packages, they
> would better invest their time in setting up a central service that
> would build for them and would help in uploading succesful builds
> instead of complaining about thrown away binary packages IMHO.

I thought this was the purpose of the existing buildd network.

--
Blog/wiki/website hosting with ikiwiki (free for free software):
http://www.branchable.com/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 1297621083.8023.4.camel@havelock.lan">http://lists.debian.org/1297621083.8023.4.camel@havelock.lan

Philipp Kern 02-13-2011 06:20 PM

Sourceful uploads
 
On 2011-02-13, Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi> wrote:
> On su, 2011-02-13 at 19:13 +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
>> On 02/13/2011 07:00 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>> > On su, 2011-02-13 at 18:49 +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> >> I don;t think that is a good idea, there are way too many people not building
>> >> and testing their packages properly already, we don't want to give that work to
>> >> the buildd-admins...
>> > That's something I don't understand. If I upload a broken package, why
>> > should it be the buildd admin's job to deal with it? Should not I get
>> > notified of the error, and told to fix it?
>> I guess the notifying is what would become the buildd admin's job...
> Why is this a manual job, rather than automated?

Actually those build failures are nowadays sent to the PTS for further
distribution (the "buildd" keyword). I don't know how many are subscribed
to those notifications, though. (After all, they're not automatically
sent to the maintainer.)

>> If people want to not have to build and upload binary packages, they
>> would better invest their time in setting up a central service that
>> would build for them and would help in uploading succesful builds
>> instead of complaining about thrown away binary packages IMHO.
> I thought this was the purpose of the existing buildd network.

I agree with you. I don't see much sense in having a separate set of trusted
machines. (And I don't think it's easy to setup such infrastructure
currently and honestly sign the result as a user.)

But then I'm all for source-only uploads. If somebody abuses them, they
could be dealt with separately.

Kind regards
Philipp Kern


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: slrnilgbnm.2m0.trash@kelgar.0x539.de">http://lists.debian.org/slrnilgbnm.2m0.trash@kelgar.0x539.de

Tollef Fog Heen 02-13-2011 09:40 PM

Sourceful uploads
 
]] Philipp Kern

| Actually those build failures are nowadays sent to the PTS for further
| distribution (the "buildd" keyword). I don't know how many are subscribed
| to those notifications, though. (After all, they're not automatically
| sent to the maintainer.)

Would people be opposed to changing that? I would be quite happy to get
mails if my packages FTBFS on various architectures, and I believe I'm
competent to at least usually see if something fails because of
something obvious or if it looks like a chroot/buildd issue. FWIW,
Ubuntu mails maintainers on build failures (at least in PPAs), and I've
found that to work well.

--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87fwrrh82u.fsf@qurzaw.varnish-software.com">http://lists.debian.org/87fwrrh82u.fsf@qurzaw.varnish-software.com

Felipe Sateler 02-13-2011 09:56 PM

Sourceful uploads
 
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 23:40:25 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:

> ]] Philipp Kern
>
> | Actually those build failures are nowadays sent to the PTS for further
> | distribution (the "buildd" keyword). I don't know how many are
> subscribed | to those notifications, though. (After all, they're not
> automatically | sent to the maintainer.)
>
> Would people be opposed to changing that? I would be quite happy to get
> mails if my packages FTBFS on various architectures, and I believe I'm
> competent to at least usually see if something fails because of
> something obvious or if it looks like a chroot/buildd issue. FWIW,
> Ubuntu mails maintainers on build failures (at least in PPAs), and I've
> found that to work well.

AFAIK, that service also mails when the build was successful, leading to
a lot of noise.



--
Saludos,
Felipe Sateler


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: ij9nif$gv8$1@dough.gmane.org">http://lists.debian.org/ij9nif$gv8$1@dough.gmane.org

gregor herrmann 02-13-2011 09:58 PM

Sourceful uploads
 
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 23:40:25 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:

> Would people be opposed to changing that? I would be quite happy to get
> mails if my packages FTBFS on various architectures,

Agreed, getting mails with build logs (or pointers to them) for build
failures would be helpful IMO.


Cheers,
gregor

--
.'`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ -- GPG key IDs: 0x8649AA06, 0x00F3CFE4
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, & developer - http://www.debian.org/
`. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of Free Software Foundation Europe
`- NP: Element of Crime: Wenn der Winter kommt

Sune Vuorela 02-13-2011 10:03 PM

Sourceful uploads
 
On 2011-02-13, Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> wrote:
> Would people be opposed to changing that? I would be quite happy to get
> mails if my packages FTBFS on various architectures, and I believe I'm
> competent to at least usually see if something fails because of
> something obvious or if it looks like a chroot/buildd issue. FWIW,

Can anyone provide a estimated number of 'real issues' (from mainatiner
pov) vs 'chroot/buildd/uninstallability issues' ?

/Sune


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: slrnilgoqe.rvp.nospam@sshway.ssh.pusling.com">http ://lists.debian.org/slrnilgoqe.rvp.nospam@sshway.ssh.pusling.com

Tollef Fog Heen 02-13-2011 10:15 PM

Sourceful uploads
 
]] Felipe Sateler

| On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 23:40:25 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
|
| > FWIW, Ubuntu mails maintainers on build failures (at least in PPAs),
| > and I've found that to work well.
|
| AFAIK, that service also mails when the build was successful, leading
| to a lot of noise.

I don't think it mails on successful builds, but I could be
wrong. Anyway, making it only mail on failure would be a pretty trivial
thing to implement, I'd imagine. Also making sure the metadata is
available in headers makes it easy to filter the mails, to /dev/null (or
opt out through some other mechanism) if so desired.

--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 877hd3frwj.fsf@qurzaw.varnish-software.com">http://lists.debian.org/877hd3frwj.fsf@qurzaw.varnish-software.com

Raphael Geissert 02-14-2011 12:02 AM

Sourceful uploads
 
Philipp Kern wrote:
> Actually those build failures are nowadays sent to the PTS for further
> distribution (the "buildd" keyword). I don't know how many are subscribed
> to those notifications, though. (After all, they're not automatically
> sent to the maintainer.)

Taking a look at the database it seems everyone in the summary tag was also
subscribed to "buildd." Now that I think about it, I remember reading about
doing that when the tag was introduced.

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
Archive: ij9uun$e2e$1@dough.gmane.org">http://lists.debian.org/ij9uun$e2e$1@dough.gmane.org

Charles Plessy 02-14-2011 03:27 AM

Sourceful uploads
 
Le Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 11:40:25PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen a écrit :
> ]] Philipp Kern
>
> | Actually those build failures are nowadays sent to the PTS for further
> | distribution (the "buildd" keyword). I don't know how many are subscribed
> | to those notifications, though. (After all, they're not automatically
> | sent to the maintainer.)
>
> Would people be opposed to changing that? I would be quite happy to get
> mails if my packages FTBFS on various architectures, and I believe I'm
> competent to at least usually see if something fails because of
> something obvious or if it looks like a chroot/buildd issue. FWIW,
> Ubuntu mails maintainers on build failures (at least in PPAs), and I've
> found that to work well.

I would be happy to get build logs as well, or at least a link to an URL
where they are dowloadable withouth HTML processing.

For the moment, I only found raw logs in /srv/buildd.debian.org/db on
buildd.debian.org, but that directory is not served over HTTP, so this excludes
non-DDs for raw retrieval. (I am also wondering where to find the cryptographic
signatures, but this is orthogonal to this discussion).

By the way, I have submitted the whishlist bug #605763 to ask if it were
possible to have sbuild use reproducible file paths during build, to minimise
diffs between build logs. That might help to compare autobuilt and
locally-built packages, as suggested in
<http://lists.debian.org/20110213194931.GB2437@khazad-dum.debian.net>.

Have a nice day,

--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110214042738.GA18401@merveille.plessy.net">http://lists.debian.org/20110214042738.GA18401@merveille.plessy.net


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:10 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.