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 fi
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 buil
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, a
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 FT
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 kee
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.
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 e
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
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
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 com
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
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
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
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, tho
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 chroo
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 th
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 i
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 i
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.
> unio
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 d
* 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
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 c
* 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
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 rebu
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.
Du
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 rebu
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, 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 F
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
> > aroun
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.
> >
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 imple
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 g
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
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
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
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 differe
-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 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 w
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, 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 providin
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 exe
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 re
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
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
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
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
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 upl
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
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 D
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 pack
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
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-
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
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 hav
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, 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
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
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
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 t
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, 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-
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 f
62 matches
Mail list logo
