On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Dries Verachtert wrote:
On Thursday 20 November 2008 12:50:34 pm Fabian Arrotin wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, Stefan Radman wrote:
Sounds like a sensible proposal with all the information needed present.
It would probably be useful to see who initiated the build process (for
the feedback).
The publicly accessible buildlogs have always been very useful for me as
rpmforge user to give a focused feedback when a package was'nt available
in the repo the main point being that they were publicly accessible for
analysis.
With the current state (buildlogs not publicly available) I can't be of
any help in getting packages like GraphViz upgraded because I don't see
where the build process fails and blindly bugging the packers every now
and then is no fun.
My 2 cents.
Stefan
Yep, that's a discussion we need to have ..
All the PPC package buildlogs are located @
http://rpms.arrfab.net/rpmforge/_buildlogs/ PS : some older ppc logs are
still located on the build machine but available on request ;-)
I've put some info about the current build log formats on the wiki:
https://rpmrepo.org/RPMforge/BuildlogFormat
Fabian already added some info about his log format.
The current log formats are quite different, so probably it isn't easy to
switch each buildsystem to 1 fixed common format. Possible solution:
* define a format for sections, for example with the '---' as used in
Dag's logformat.
* define a set of required sections, at least:
o a general header with info about the build
o the output of rpmbuild
o the result of the rpmbuild command
* allow additional sections, just like you can add additional X- headers
in a mail
* a standard name for the log file
What do you think?
Thanks Dries.
For me the content of the logfile does not (per se) have to be exactly the
same. It would be nice, but I don't see a good validation for spending a
lot of resource on it if at some point we would move to a central
buildsystem anyway.
What is most important is a naming convention, so that the repository
scripts can handle it and so that the files listed in the same directory
are properly ordered and can be easily identified.
If we can agree on a filename (and we do some conversions) we'd have the
buildlogs up of all three in a day.
So here's my proposal:
name-version-release.arch.extra.log
where in my case the extra includes 'ok' and 'ko', but for someone else it
could hold the buildid or may even be empty.
- No longer compressed (easier access from the browser)
- Extension .log so it is obvious what it is (works inside browsers like .txt)
- I think it is important to have the build status (ok/.ko) in the
filename too, simply because that makes if very resource-light to scan
or compare results without the need for accessing the files
There was a time when .log.gz and .txt.gz were opened directly from the
browser too, but I don't know when that stopped working as I find it very
inconvenient. Having the logfiles compressed however makes a real
difference on disk and for bandwidth, so while I prefer compression I do
accept that making them more accessible (and indexable by Google) are very
valuable to a lot of people.
Only the build-logs of packages that you are authority of, are being
displayed in the packages-listing (much like how it already is for the
RPMs themselves).
--
-- dag wieers, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rpmforge.net/mailman/listinfo/users
