On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:44:34 +0100, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Op di, 15-03-2005 te 16:19 -0500, schreef Anthony DeRobertis:
> > Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >
> > | You misunderstood. I don't fight generic changes to the order; I just
> > | don't think it would be a good thing that a
Hi, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> I think the queue
> needs to be as FIFO as possible for fairness and "principle of least
> surprise" sake.
See my patch on d-d (also mailed to the ftpmasters), which inserts "age in
queue" (actually, timestamp of last status change, but that's
more-or-less equivalent)
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
That's not to say that a request to prioritize a package is to be
ignored; however, the power of deciding which packages get built first
should be with those that actually build the packages, rather than with
those who want their packages to be built. The former are expected
Hello Wouter
On 2005-03-16 Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> That's not to say that a request to prioritize a package is to be
> ignored; however, the power of deciding which packages get built first
> should be with those that actually build the packages, rather than with
> those who want their packages t
Op di, 15-03-2005 te 16:19 -0500, schreef Anthony DeRobertis:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> | You misunderstood. I don't fight generic changes to the order; I just
> | don't think it would be a good thing that any random developer could
> | prioritize his pet package.
> |
>
> Any random developer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
| You misunderstood. I don't fight generic changes to the order; I just
| don't think it would be a good thing that any random developer could
| prioritize his pet package.
|
Any random developer already has root on X thousand deb
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 17:59 +0100, schreef Goswin von Brederlow:
>> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Op vr, 11-03-2005 te 19:14 -0800, schreef Steve Langasek:
>> >> The queue ordering is entirely automatic, and AIUI the queue(s) is (
Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 17:59 +0100, schreef Goswin von Brederlow:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Op vr, 11-03-2005 te 19:14 -0800, schreef Steve Langasek:
> >> The queue ordering is entirely automatic, and AIUI the queue(s) is (are)
> >> sorted by:
> >>
> >> - target suite
> >
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Op vr, 11-03-2005 te 19:14 -0800, schreef Steve Langasek:
>> The queue ordering is entirely automatic, and AIUI the queue(s) is (are)
>> sorted by:
>>
>> - target suite
>- previous compilation state (already built packages are prioritized
> above
On Mon, March 14, 2005 15:09, Goswin von Brederlow said:
>>> People
>>> should stop repeating the fiction then that "just wait" means "your
>>> package will eventually get built".
> It usualy is. It might not be. And it can be an awfully long wait.
> The last one is the problem. The first two not.
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Op za, 12-03-2005 te 15:01 -0800, schreef Thomas Bushnell BSG:
>> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Remember that the buildd queue is not FIFO at all. The queue has a
>> > completly static order. Any changes to the queue are jus
[please don't cc: me on this thread, one copy is plenty, thanks; and
please don't cc: debian-release unless there's a specific reason it's
on-topic there, which explaining wanna-build is not. ;)]
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:30:45PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op vr, 11-03-2005 te 17:03 -0800, s
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I agree with the w-b maintainers. The queue order is only interesting in
> the case where there is a backlog; in other cases, packages are usually
> built rather fast. In the case where there is a backlog, those trying to
> fix the architecture (usuall
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It means that when one is told "just wait, your package will get
> > rebuilt"; it is not necessarily true at all. There is no upper bound
> > at all on time to wait for building, and that's a disaster.
>
> This paragraph assumes nobody ever looks t
Op vr, 11-03-2005 te 19:14 -0800, schreef Steve Langasek:
> The queue ordering is entirely automatic, and AIUI the queue(s) is (are)
> sorted by:
>
> - target suite
- previous compilation state (already built packages are prioritized
above packages never built for the target architecture)
> -
Op vr, 11-03-2005 te 17:03 -0800, schreef Thomas Bushnell BSG:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Re-uploading a package to provoke a buildd response is counterproductive,
> > *particularly* when the package is already in Needs-Build on the missing
> > architectures. Re-uploading
Op za, 12-03-2005 te 15:01 -0800, schreef Thomas Bushnell BSG:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Remember that the buildd queue is not FIFO at all. The queue has a
> > completly static order. Any changes to the queue are just packages
> > hiding because they are not "needs-b
Op za, 12-03-2005 te 15:19 +1100, schreef Matthew Palmer:
> I'm trying to work out why package *section* matters at all.
This is simply an attempt to avoid as much
needs-build->building->dep-wait cycles as possible; packages that are
usually build-dependencies are built before packages that are us
Op za, 12-03-2005 te 16:24 -0800, schreef Thomas Bushnell BSG:
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Practically, buildd admins can notice a longer-than-usual queue and throw
> > hardware at the problem, and that seems to work well enough, and we could
> > reduce the rate of package i
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Practically, buildd admins can notice a longer-than-usual queue and throw
> hardware at the problem, and that seems to work well enough, and we could
> reduce the rate of package inflow through various means, but the problem
> still remains -- the queue
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 03:12:12PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 03:01:28PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > Remember that the buildd queue is not FIFO at all. The queue has a
> > > completly static order. Any c
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Er, packages *do* eventually get built; they just don't get built in any
> kind of FIFO order.
This is not true. The current system has an unbounded wait time. For
example, the effect of the Bug Squashing Party, which causes a bunch
of uploads to b
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 03:01:28PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Remember that the buildd queue is not FIFO at all. The queue has a
> > completly static order. Any changes to the queue are just packages
> > hiding because they are not "nee
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Remember that the buildd queue is not FIFO at all. The queue has a
> completly static order. Any changes to the queue are just packages
> hiding because they are not "needs-build". I consider that the biggest
> flaw of all in wanna-build.
This is
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 03:19:23PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>> [Probably going a bit off track for -release; MFT to -devel]
>
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 07:14:35PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > The queue ordering is entirely automatic, and AIUI
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 09:03:16PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 03:19:23PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > I'm trying to work out why package *section* matters at all. Package name
> > is a bit odd, too, but including the section in there is just totally
> > whack.
>
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 05:03:55PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Unfortunately, the queue ordering policy is unclear. I was guessing
> that the priority of the upload would have something to do with
> queueing policy.
>
> Since the all but one of the other arch buildd's have empty
> needs-b
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 03:19:23PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> [Probably going a bit off track for -release; MFT to -devel]
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 07:14:35PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > The queue ordering is entirely automatic, and AIUI the queue(s) is (are)
> > sorted by:
> > - target
[Probably going a bit off track for -release; MFT to -devel]
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 07:14:35PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The queue ordering is entirely automatic, and AIUI the queue(s) is (are)
> sorted by:
>
> - target suite
> - package priority
> - package section
> - package
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The queue ordering is entirely automatic, and AIUI the queue(s) is (are)
> sorted by:
>
> - target suite
> - package priority
> - package section
> - package name
>
> I personally believe it would be beneficial to prioritize by upload urge
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 05:03:55PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Re-uploading a package to provoke a buildd response is counterproductive,
> > *particularly* when the package is already in Needs-Build on the missing
> > architectures. Re-upload
Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 05:03:55PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > If, perhaps, there was a clear indication of the buildd ordering
> > policy, then it could be properly used. Until then, I go on the basis
> > of guesswork.
>
> You were
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 05:03:55PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> If, perhaps, there was a clear indication of the buildd ordering
> policy, then it could be properly used. Until then, I go on the basis
> of guesswork.
You were *told*[1] to wait. Do not fall back to guesswork when someone
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Re-uploading a package to provoke a buildd response is counterproductive,
> *particularly* when the package is already in Needs-Build on the missing
> architectures. Re-uploading doesn't change its position in the queue, but
> it *does* force buildds f
Changelog entry from a package that has just arrived in incoming:
gnucash (1.8.10-8) unstable; urgency=high
.
* high urgency upload because the fix for critical bug 291632 didn't get
into testing because of recompilation bugs, those later fixes were
uploaded with urgency low, and th
35 matches
Mail list logo
