Hi, On Tue, 08 Jun 2021, Helmut Grohne wrote: > With "look behind the abstraction", I think that you mean that debusine > would have to implement the mdbp api to perform worker selection. While > that would be possible indeed, I don't see this as required though. […] > I do wonder though, in what kind of situation would you want to merely > know whether a backend can perform a build as opposed to just attempting > it and being able to tell backend issues from actual build failures > apart.
I want to know it precisely in the context of selecting a worker. I don't want to schedule a task on a worker and later get back an answer "sorry I can't handle your task", and then have to schedule it on some other worker. When I have selected a worker, I want to be sure that the worker is properly configured to be able to run that specific task. > > It would not be enough for debusine yet (for debusine I need to be able to > > export data from the worker and then make that decision on the server and > > not on the build machine itself) but it would be nice step forward for the > > local use case where you want "mdbp" to figure out alone which backend to > > use based on what the user did setup earlier. > > Yes, that makes sense. I note that the decision is meant to be made on > the build-issuing side for mdbp as well. If you use the ssh backend, the > relevant command might look like this: > > mdbp-ssh someserver.somesite mdbp-mmdebstrap --mirror > http://mirror.somesite/debian Yes, but using the ssh backend will require specific user configuration while the sbuild/pbuilder one could potientially be auto-selected based on whether the user did run the appropriate sbuild-create-chroot or pbuilder --create earlier. > > This abstraction definitely makes sense to me. Before looking closely > > at your build_schema.json, but after having looked at your mail here, > > I wrote this as a try to go in your direction: > > https://freexian-team.pages.debian.net/debusine/devel/ontology.html#task-packagebuild > > Great. Maybe that's the level where we can make best progress? Likely, yes. > I've taken the liberty to rather open a discussion issue at > https://salsa.debian.org/freexian-team/debusine/-/issues/10. Hope this > works for you. Yes, thanks! > > PS: I already hate the "mdbp" name after having it typed so many times. > > I'm not attached to either. Any suggestions? sbp for "standardized build package" is easier to type but not necessarily nicer. "justadeb" or "gimmeadeb" or "buildadeb" because I just want a .deb (and I don't care how it gets built!). "deblord" or "debring" - the lord of the ring to tie all package builders together Cheers, -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Raphaël Hertzog <hert...@debian.org> ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ The Debian Handbook: https://debian-handbook.info/get/ ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Debian Long Term Support: https://deb.li/LTS
