On Monday 01 December 2008 03:27:00 pm Dag Wieers wrote:
> 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.

That's ok for me. I'm currently using a different convention but i don't see 
any advantages/disadvantages between them. I'll rename those files. Fabian: 
looks ok for you too?

>    - No longer compressed (easier access from the browser)

Currently i've got +/- 500 megabytes of log files. Uncompressed this will be  
probably +/- 5 gigabytes according to some small tests... 

>    - 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).

Dries

_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rpmforge.net/mailman/listinfo/users

Reply via email to