[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: the mass rebuild and i586 rpms?



Hi,

On 22.10.2009 19:29, Quentin Armitage wrote:
1. Is the script that is run and produces the output at
http://jkeating.fedorapeople.org/needed-f12-rebuilds.html actually the
script referred to at the bottom of that page
(https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/browser/scripts) ? The reason I ask is
that when I run the script, I get

Included Koji instances:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/kojihub
http://sparc.koji.fedoraproject.org/kojihub
http://s390.koji.fedoraproject.org/kojihub
http://arm.koji.fedoraproject.org/kojihub

whereas the posted output only has
Included Koji instances:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/kojihub
http://sparc.koji.fedoraproject.org/kojihub

It is, but Jesse has disabled the other Koji hubs because sometimes they just time out, unfortunately.

2. If the script is run against just koji.fedoraproject,org/kojihub
(i.e. without the sub arches), it says 185 packages need
rebuilding (instead of the 175 listed in the report); the following
10 packages are omitted when the sparc koji hub is also included:
gmpc
HippoDraw
itcl
latex2rtf
prtconf
PyKDE
python-igraph
silo
spicebird
xorg-x11-drv-sunffb

This is caused by line 117 of the script:
         unbuilt = unbuilt&  unbuiltnew
so if a package needs to be rebuilt on the primary arch, but not on the
(in this case sparc) secondary arch, then it is dropped from needing to
be rebuilt

Yes, that's how I did it -- my primary goal was to clear the list off secondary-arch-only stuff. There might be of course some cases like if somebody rebuilds a package only for a secondary arch but not for the primary one, but I don't think this is much a problem (there won't be many compared to the -- increasing -- number of secondary-arch-only stuff which we won't need).

 (it appears that a package will only be listed if it needs
to be rebuild on every arch).

No, the package appears if there is no build after the specified date in any of the archs (to be clear: as soon as the package is built in at least one arch, it will get off the list).

 There are several circumstances where this
can happen (with the 10 missing packages listed):

Built on sub arch but failed on primary arch
============================================
gmpc - 0.18.0-1 build on sparc after epoch but 0.18.0-2 failed on koji
HippoDraw
itcl
latex2rtf
python-igraph

Yes, those are not caught by this script now and should be rebuilt in primary arch as well of course.

Not a primary arch package (should the package be blocked in the primary
arch kojihub?)
==========================
prtconf
silo
xorg-x11-drv-sunffb

There are much more of them! I don't know whether it is possible to block a package in a single Koji hub and if our infrastructure team is willing to go in this way -- Jesse?

Blocked on secondary arch (so not included in unbuiltnew)
=========================
spicebird

Should be probably blocked in all hubs too. The blocking mechanism definitely doesn't serve instead of ExcludeArch, am I right?

Built on sub arch but not submitted for rebuild on primary arch
================================================================
PyKDE

Should be rebuilt (I just started the build).

Package does not exist in secondary arch (no example)
=====================================================

Would it be more relevant to list what needs to be rebuild separately
for each arch (but see point 3 below)?
3. So far as I can see, there have not been mass rebuilds on the
secondary arches, so is it relevant to search them for successful builds
since the epoch? If it is relevant, they would appear to have different
epochs in any case.

Well, when I got to modifying the script (about half a year ago), the main problem was that there was too much noise consisting in secondary-arch-only packages. At that time there were more than 100 of such builds which is quite a lot.

Also, secondary archs (re)builds are completely in the hands of secondary arch maintainers, they're not bound to the primary archs mass rebuilds.

5. I have looked at the 185 packages that have not been rebuilt, and the
reasons fall into the following categories (details for each package are
listed later):
1. Not submitted for rebuild (65)

Yeah, there were some problems during the mass rebuild, IIRC (esp. with packages starting with o*, p* and maybe others). They should be definitely rebuilt. Looking at your lists, when rebuilding packages you should be aware of:

1) secondary-arch-only packages (xorg-x11-drv-sun*)
2) dead packages not blocked in Koji (a package is dead iff there is a dead.package file in the CVS; if it is then not blocked in Koji, please report to Jesse).
3) packages not built yet because they've just passed the review.

I have made some changes to need-rebuild.py to produce some of the
information above, and am happy to provide them if they are of any
interest.

Great! The more people get involved, the better:)

Regards,
Milos


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]