I also believe that we should aim for packages to be autobuilt and tested. Michał Masłowski <[email protected]> writes:
>> - If packagers: >> - That's a lot more work, and I think encourages people to be >> sloppy. > > I believe we should aim for packages not being built by packagers on > their systems. > >> - If autobuilder: >> - I think that this hugely increases the risk of releasing a >> broken package, if there isn't human intervention. Right >> now[1], autobuilder is only used for extremely simple packages. > > Can we detect enough broken packages automatically? (Other distros run > tests after the build.) We had no testing on mips64el, we still have no > testing for interactions between Arch and Parabola packages. > >> - How do we handle signing? Do we pass through the sigs of Arch >> developers in any way? > > Have one key for all packages, make the build server sign the packages > that it gets? Use developer keys only for packages sent to the build > server? (This is needed to fix the usual missing key issues.) > >> - Where would it run? That would be a lot of load to put on the >> main server. >> - We could build a job server, where a packager has a daemon >> that gets jobs from the main server, and runs them locally. >> That makes signing more complex (each dev needs 2 keys; one >> for normal builds, one for autobuilder builds), and means >> way more code to be written. > > This looks too complex, while it won't be simpler with e.g. two central > build servers (or one that is easy to replace). > _______________________________________________ > Dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev
