On 8/25/05, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Olaf van der Spek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 8/23/05, Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 01:42:18 +0200, Martin Pitt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Something like this is in fact considered. Probably Ubuntu won't
Olaf van der Spek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I guess this is all related to IO though?
Why don't you extract the files to another place and then simply
link/unlink them instead of tar/rm?
Something might alter the files. That would only ward against some
chroot corruptions and silently keep
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 01:42:18 +0200, Martin Pitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Something like this is in fact considered. Probably Ubuntu won't use
pbuilder itself since it is not the most efficient implementation
around, but rebuilding the buildd chroots from scratch would help to
eliminate many
Hi Michael!
Michael Spang [2005-08-25 12:44 -0400]:
Wouldn't those bugs just be indicative of an improperly packaged app or
broken build system? I really don't see the point of using pbuilder to
inefficiently work around a fixable problem.
Sure, these packages should be fixed. However, at
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 08:01:24PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
Michael Spang [2005-08-25 12:44 -0400]:
If they're not fixable (I don't see how this could be) perhaps we
need a Build-Conflicts field.
Most probably not, since buildd chroots only install the required
build-deps and
On 8/25/05, Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Olaf van der Spek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I guess this is all related to IO though?
Why don't you extract the files to another place and then simply
link/unlink them instead of tar/rm?
Something might alter the files. That
Hi!
Goswin von Brederlow [2005-08-23 21:54 +0200]:
You have to keep the chroot up-to-date manualy anyway as sbuild does
not upgrade unless a Build-Depends requires a newer version
specificaly.
That's not true for Ubuntu's buildds, they are upgraded daily. I guess
with the amount of new
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 09:23:59AM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
Hi!
Goswin von Brederlow [2005-08-23 21:54 +0200]:
You have to keep the chroot up-to-date manualy anyway as sbuild does
not upgrade unless a Build-Depends requires a newer version
specificaly.
That's not true for Ubuntu's
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 09:54:20PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then you'd have to keep the master chroot image up-to-date. If you don't
do that, after a while the master image will digress too much
Olaf van der Spek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 8/23/05, Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 01:42:18 +0200, Martin Pitt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Something like this is in fact considered. Probably Ubuntu won't use
pbuilder itself since it is not the most efficient
Martin Pitt skrev:
Hi Wouter!
Wouter Verhelst [2005-08-23 1:26 +0200]:
So you suggest throwing buildd out of the window and switching to
pbuilder, then?
Something like this is in fact considered. Probably Ubuntu won't use
pbuilder itself since it is not the most efficient implementation
Hi!
Steve Langasek [2005-08-22 18:09 -0700]:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 03:34:16PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
W. Borgert [2005-08-22 14:37 +0200]:
Quoting Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I used to think that too. I took a wander through queue/reject on
merkel.
I don't think
Hi Tomas!
Tomas Fasth [2005-08-23 9:31 +0200]:
So you suggest throwing buildd out of the window and switching to
pbuilder, then?
Something like this is in fact considered. Probably Ubuntu won't use
pbuilder itself since it is not the most efficient implementation
around, but
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 01:42:18 +0200, Martin Pitt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Something like this is in fact considered. Probably Ubuntu won't use
pbuilder itself since it is not the most efficient implementation
around, but rebuilding the buildd chroots from scratch would help to
eliminate many FTBFS
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 09:32:33AM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
It doesn't really hurt us right now, so we didn't start to force
building packages in pbuilder. buildd time is cheap compared to
developer time, so introducing mandatory pbuilding would slow down
development quite drastically.
I
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 11:25:41AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 01:42:18 +0200, Martin Pitt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Something like this is in fact considered. Probably Ubuntu won't use
pbuilder itself since it is not the most efficient implementation
around, but rebuilding
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 01:42:18AM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
one day (as the buildds do) is certainly acceptable. OTOH, lagging
behind for several weeks (which is not unreasonable for folks without
a phat pipe) is certainly not, especially if you are in a period of
massive transitions.
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 11:25:41AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 01:42:18 +0200, Martin Pitt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Something like this is in fact considered. Probably Ubuntu won't use
pbuilder itself since it is not the most efficient implementation
around, but rebuilding
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 09:32:33AM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
It doesn't really hurt us right now, so we didn't start to force
building packages in pbuilder. buildd time is cheap compared to
developer time, so introducing mandatory pbuilding would
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 09:14:28AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 09:32:33AM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
It doesn't really hurt us right now, so we didn't start to force
building packages in pbuilder. buildd time is cheap
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 09:14:28AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
Sure we do, for certain ports (ie: amd64). Really, this just means it'd
be better to implement a system along the lines of:
source upload
fastest/preferred buildd type (i386,
Martin Pitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Wouter!
Wouter Verhelst [2005-08-23 1:26 +0200]:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 04:08:37PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
Hamish Moffatt [2005-08-22 23:47 +1000]:
There is the possibility that developer builds get extra features
enabled due to other
Martin Pitt skrev:
Hi Tomas!
Tomas Fasth [2005-08-23 9:31 +0200]:
As a side note, I have myself thought about extending pbuilder using
unionfs and overlays to avoid the tarball extraction for each build.
Indeed I referred to the overhead of tarball extraction and the like.
unionfs is a
Martin Pitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Tomas!
Tomas Fasth [2005-08-23 9:31 +0200]:
So you suggest throwing buildd out of the window and switching to
pbuilder, then?
Something like this is in fact considered. Probably Ubuntu won't use
pbuilder itself since it is not the most
Peter 'p2' De Schrijver [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 11:25:41AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 01:42:18 +0200, Martin Pitt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Something like this is in fact considered. Probably Ubuntu won't use
pbuilder itself since it is not the most
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 11:25:41AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 01:42:18 +0200, Martin Pitt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Something like this is in fact considered. Probably Ubuntu won't use
pbuilder itself since it is not the most
Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 01:42:18 +0200, Martin Pitt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Something like this is in fact considered. Probably Ubuntu won't use
pbuilder itself since it is not the most efficient implementation
around, but rebuilding the buildd chroots from
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 09:14:28AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
source upload
fastest/preferred buildd type (i386, amd64, whatever) attempts build
-- Success
Other buildds attempt to build
That would introduce some delay which, though generally
On 8/23/05, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 09:14:28AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 09:32:33AM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
It doesn't really hurt us right now, so we didn't start to force
On 8/23/05, Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 01:42:18 +0200, Martin Pitt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Something like this is in fact considered. Probably Ubuntu won't use
pbuilder itself since it is not the most efficient implementation
around, but rebuilding the buildd
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 09:54:20PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then you'd have to keep the master chroot image up-to-date. If you don't
do that, after a while the master image will digress too much from the
actual Debian archive, and you end
Quoting Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
All packages should be built by official debian buildds anyway, not on
developper machines with random cruft and unsecure packages installed, or
even
possibly experimental or home-modified stuff.
That would be very good, indeed. I am very much in favour
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 10:45:58AM +0200, W. Borgert wrote:
Quoting Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
All packages should be built by official debian buildds anyway, not on
developper machines with random cruft and unsecure packages installed, or
even
possibly experimental or home-modified
Quoting Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
According to stories I've heard from people from Ubuntu (that does it
this way), it quite clearly isn't, because of the pretty high number of
people who upload packages without even testing the build themselves.
Of course, DDs will do better :-)
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, W. Borgert wrote:
Quoting Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
According to stories I've heard from people from Ubuntu (that does it
this way), it quite clearly isn't, because of the pretty high number of
people who upload packages without even testing the build
Quoting Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
At doing stupid things, you mean :-( Our demographics do not allow
source-only uploads unfortunately.
I don't really get this sentence, could you please re-word?
(Sorry, I'm not a native speaker of English)
Which doesn't mean we can't
On Mon, August 22, 2005 10:45, W. Borgert wrote:
Fortunately, Martin Krafft came up with the idea of
allowing source-only uploads only together with a signed test protocol.
The test protocol would have to include the output of lintian, linda,
and piuparts - warnings allowed, errors not.
I
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, W. Borgert wrote:
Quoting Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
At doing stupid things, you mean :-( Our demographics do not allow
source-only uploads unfortunately.
I don't really get this sentence, could you please re-word?
The current set of DDs will do
Quoting Thijs Kinkhorst [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I dislike this idea: it is way overengineered. For starters I don't
understand why you would want to run both lintian and linda, since those
I really don't care whether one has to run either lintian or linda
or both. That's an implementation detail.
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
they would complement eachother, then why are the vast majority of their
tests present in both programs? I'll just talk about lintian below, but
Vast majority isn't the complete set, and new tests are usually written for
lintian and not linda. I have
Quoting Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, W. Borgert wrote:
I don't really get this sentence, could you please re-word?
The current set of DDs will do unverified source uploads immediately if
given half a chance. Unverified binary uploads are rather common,
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 10:45:58AM +0200, W. Borgert wrote:
Quoting Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
All packages should be built by official debian buildds anyway, not on
developper machines with random cruft and unsecure packages installed, or
even
possibly experimental or home-modified
Quoting Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I used to think that too. I took a wander through queue/reject on merkel.
I don't think that any more. I'm curious as to how Ubuntu is going to
sustain source-only uploads, honestly.
Mandatory, signed build and test logs? I've no idea...
Cheers, WB
Hi Matthew!
Matthew Palmer [2005-08-22 22:22 +1000]:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 10:45:58AM +0200, W. Borgert wrote:
Quoting Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
All packages should be built by official debian buildds anyway, not on
developper machines with random cruft and unsecure packages
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 03:31:40PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
Please let's not try to solve the problem of sloppy maintainers with a
(wrong) technical solution. If a maintainer doesn't care for his
packages, he can screw up a binary upload as well (or even worse than)
a source upload. If a DD
Hi!
W. Borgert [2005-08-22 14:37 +0200]:
Quoting Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I used to think that too. I took a wander through queue/reject on merkel.
I don't think that any more. I'm curious as to how Ubuntu is going to
sustain source-only uploads, honestly.
Mandatory, signed
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 14:37:10 +0200, W Borgert [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Quoting Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I used to think that too. I took a wander through queue/reject on
merkel. I don't think that any more. I'm curious as to how Ubuntu
is going to sustain source-only uploads,
Hi!
Hamish Moffatt [2005-08-22 23:47 +1000]:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 03:31:40PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
Please let's not try to solve the problem of sloppy maintainers with a
(wrong) technical solution. If a maintainer doesn't care for his
packages, he can screw up a binary upload as
Quoting Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There is the possibility that developer builds get extra features
enabled due to other installed libraries etc. This could be checked for
by analysing the packages files for different architectures or similar.
This is a really nice idea: A DD with a
On 8/22/05, Manoj Srivastava va, manoj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 14:37:10 +0200, W Borgert [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Quoting Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I used to think that too. I took a wander through queue/reject on
merkel. I don't think that any more. I'm
On 8/22/05, W. Borgert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Source-only uploads (with mandatory, signed build- and test-logs)
would have the advantage of not having to upload large binaries.
I have DSL - upload is ca. eight times slower than download here.
You'd prefer 33k6, where upload and download are
Quoting Olaf van der Spek [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Indeed. Why would those checks be done client-side instead of
server-side anyway?
To prevent overload from the buildds. But maybe Martin Pitt is
right, and we should just do it like Ubuntu (source-only uploads)
and invent measures, if the need
On Monday 22 August 2005 16.08, W. Borgert wrote:
[...]
This is a really nice idea: A DD with a strange sense of humour
could
[...]
If we're starting to worry about what kind of damage a DD can do to the
world by providing some bogus uploads, let's just not. Any DD can cause
code to be
On 8/22/05, Adrian von Bidder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 22 August 2005 16.08, W. Borgert wrote:
[...]
This is a really nice idea: A DD with a strange sense of humour
could
[...]
If we're starting to worry about what kind of damage a DD can do to the
world by providing some
Hi Olaf!
Olaf van der Spek [2005-08-22 19:28 +0200]:
If we're starting to worry about what kind of damage a DD can do to the
world by providing some bogus uploads, let's just not. Any DD can cause
code to be executed as root on a potentially very big number of machines
world wide,
On 8/22/05, Martin Pitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Olaf!
Hi, ;-
With a (far) better privilege system you could avoid running most if
not all code as root, but that's another topic.
No, you can't. The naming (whether you call it root or whatever) is
insignificant. You can't write down
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
W. Borgert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe we would need one more buildd for i386 and one or two buildds
for 'all', which does not have a buildd, AFAIK.
You could just have the i386 buildd generate arch-all. It just needs
to run 'sbuild -A'.
-
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 04:08:47PM +0200, W. Borgert wrote:
Quoting Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There is the possibility that developer builds get extra features
enabled due to other installed libraries etc. This could be checked for
by analysing the packages files for different
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 04:08:37PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
Hamish Moffatt [2005-08-22 23:47 +1000]:
There is the possibility that developer builds get extra features
enabled due to other installed libraries etc. This could be checked for
by analysing the packages files for different
Hi Wouter!
Wouter Verhelst [2005-08-23 1:26 +0200]:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 04:08:37PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
Hamish Moffatt [2005-08-22 23:47 +1000]:
There is the possibility that developer builds get extra features
enabled due to other installed libraries etc. This could be checked
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
It may be possible to compare the dependencies of each package across
architectures to detect this - not at upload time, but asynchronously.
(Developers do plenty of other such archive-wide tests now and report
back through the BTS, debian-devel etc.)
I
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 03:34:16PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
W. Borgert [2005-08-22 14:37 +0200]:
Quoting Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I used to think that too. I took a wander through queue/reject on merkel.
I don't think that any more. I'm curious as to how Ubuntu is going to
62 matches
Mail list logo
