Hi, On Wed, 02 Jun 2021, Helmut Grohne wrote: > * debusine's build milestone implements a lock-in on sbuild. The > abstraction that I'm seeking doesn't happen here.
Just to be clear, I think I want that kind of abstraction at some point. Because one should be able to schedule a package build and it should be able to build without preference on a worker where we have sbuild + the appropriate chroot or on a machine where pbuilder has been setup or on a machine with mdbp ;-) But Freexian is paying someone to get this code so I'm doing it with small steps that lead to a minimal viable product on which we can cooperate further. Release early, release often. :-) That abstraction will likely come later when someone implements a second way to build packages. > Possibly debusine could replace its sbuild task with a mdbp task? I don't intend to restrict too much the number of "tasks" that I will accept in debusine, we can have both if it makes sense. Though I believe that this is an abstraction worth having at the debusine level without delegating that abstraction to "mdbp". > would automatically work on pbuilder and mmdebstrap for free. It also > doesn't have to implement another method for issuing builds remotely and > can concentrate on the scheduling part. That's not really relevant, part of the goal of debusine is to let you leverage a network of workers for any kind of task, not only for package builds. > > In the current design > > (https://salsa.debian.org/freexian-team/debusine/-/issues/7) for the > > current iteration, I don't have that level of details but it should > > not be too hard to add this on top. Only the differentiated handling of > > build/host architecture might be non-trivial as it will impact the > > scheduling > > (identification of an appopriate worker). > > Please get the architecture part right from the start. It is not that > hard actually. Your issue already mentions an unspecific "architecture" > field, so you already get to choose suitable workers. It is only the > build architecture that affects worker choice. The host architecture is > only a setting to pass down and debusine does not have to care about it > at all. I tried to fix it based on your feedback in the ticket but it looks like it doesn't match your expectation. When I request a build for the "arm64" architecture, I want "arm64.deb" as output, that's defined by the "host architecture" right? (In this context, I would not care if it's build by cross-compilation in an amd64 build chroot or if it's build natively in an arm64 chroot) > Maybe we can use some AWS credits to provide PBaaS to developers at some > point. Or even archive rebuilds as a service. Definitely. > While Debian uses sbuild in official buildds, reproducible.d.n is fully > built on pbuilder instead. It isn't that homogeneous in the end. In > order to make debusine easier to set up, I think it should not tightly > couple with sbuild. As I said, I don't want to tightly couple it, it's just the easiest and most useful first step for me. Cheers, -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Raphaël Hertzog <hert...@debian.org> ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ The Debian Handbook: https://debian-handbook.info/get/ ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Debian Long Term Support: https://deb.li/LTS
