On 02/07/07 at 21:26 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > Lucas has agreed to doing a full archive rebuild with a modified dpkg-dev, > for comparison with the previous test. A dpkg-dev binary including this > change can be found at > <http://people.debian.org/~vorlon/dpkg-dev_1.14.4-0.1_all.deb>.
Hi, Here are some results: 7299 packages from unstable/main were rebuilt (that's all packages building non-arch:all packages). 1823 packages were built using 'debian/rules build-arch'. Of those 1823 packages, 31 packages failed to build. Logs can be found on http://people.debian.org/~lucas/logs/2007/07/04/ . Regarding build time, it's difficult to compare, because the most recent data I have was generated on a different set of cluster nodes, and the nodes I used for this have a slower network connection. Also, the mirror's disk is a bottleneck since I was using 55 nodes. But some packages seem to benefit from using build-arch despite that. See http://people.debian.org/~lucas/logs/2007/07/04/00impr_bt.txt . Previous and current build times are the 8th and 9th columns. There might be others, that /built/ faster, but that took a longer time to fetch build-deps because of the network/mirror. The full listing of the results is on http://people.debian.org/~lucas/logs/2007/07/04/00summary.txt , with the columns being: 1: package 2, 3, 4: previous, current version, and whether they differ 5, 6, 7: previous, current result, and whether they differ 8, 9, 10: previous, current result, and whether they differ (incl. margin of error) 11, 12, 13: previous, current reason for build failure, and whether they differ. So, to conclude: this change seems like a good idea, with only about 30 packages to fix (but they should probably be fixed anyway). Not so many packages benefit from it currently, but there was no reason until now for packages to implement that. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
