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

Re: Packaging review guidelines clarification

On Sat, 2006-02-18 at 12:54 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-02-18 at 09:59 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > 
> > Ok, I did some digging in the plague code this morning.  It seems that
> > plague 0.4 already has support built into it for a testing/scratch repo.
> > Namely, if the target is said repo, it changes the status of the build
> > job to done after building and skips the addtorepo step. (Unless I read
> > some code wrong).
> (note that I renamed "scratch" to "testing" to reduce confusion.  If
> "scratch" is still in the 0.5 code I should fix that.)

I noticed that.  But I personally think it's more confusing.  We aren't
looking for a testing repo, we're looking for a scratch repo.  A testing
repo implies some policy, etc to go along with it.

(Two minutes pass after reading some more of this thread.)

See, I told you ;)

> No, you read the code correctly.  However, there's a big gaping hole for
> scratch/testing builds; dependencies.  Since the packages don't get
> added to the distro repository or the buildsystem repository, you can't
> build a testing package B that depends on a testing package A.  You can
> only build single packages into a testing repo.  Oversight on my part
> perhaps.  We figured this out right before we were going to enable
> testing targets last year.
> To fix this, we have to make testing targets full-fledged repositories
> in their own right, that inherit from the normal distro repo too, and
> then periodically purge packages over a day or two old.

Ok, that makes sense.

> > So... it's more a question of can we enable this on the FE buildsys and
> > if so what method should we use?  Some options:
> > 
> > 1)
> > 
> > Plague has the ability to allow building from an SRPM itself.  We could
> > allow folks to specify the SRPM for a package which will then be
> > uploaded and built on the scratch repo.  I believe this option is
> > disabled at the moment on the server config side of things.
> Correct, you can either do SRPM _or_ CVS builds, but not both.  In the
> context of testing targets/repos, perhaps SRPMs would be a good thing.
> But I'm not entirely sure of that.  At least if all the files are in
> CVS, there's a slightly higher accountability so that people don't just
> shove crap or any old SRPM through the buildsys.  It's more "open" and
> transparent what people are trying to build from a security perspective
> too.  I guess I'd discourage SRPM building for these reasons in the
> context of Fedora.
> Remember, you can create arbitrary tags and branches with package CVS,
> and the buildsys doesn't really care what tag the package comes from as
> long as the tag exists.

Yes, and I agree with this.  I forgot about the arbitrary tags, which
would make some things easier.

> > Doing this would help people ensure that new packages build correctly on
> > all arches, etc before actually being imported into CVS.  The idea is
> > that it'll catch some things that a simple review wouldn't and help
> > fixup the package that much earlier.
> You bring up a good point here.  But how do we gate this?  We probably
> shouldn't be handing out buildsys accounts some new person 5 minutes
> after they submit a package just so they can build some random SRPM they
> found online.

My original thinking was that only those with cvsextras access would be
able to do this so the "new person" part wouldn't apply.  There would
already be some level of trust.  But I've since talked myself out of
this, since it just complicates things.

> > 2)
> > 
> > Enable the scratch repo and add a 'make scratch' target to the
> > makefiles.  Same advantages as above, just that it requires the package
> > to be in CVS already.
> I think this is the more likely scenario.  We fix the testing/scratch
> targets by making them real targets that just don't get their packages
> moved over to the "official" repository ever.  We add cronjobs to kill
> packages in the testing targets after two days.

Yep, exactly.

> > The issues with both of these options are: how do we make sure scratch
> > builds aren't holding up real builds (or if that will even be a problem)
> > and if option 1) is used, are there security issues at all with allowing
> > people to upload SRPMs directly.
> Priorities are going to take a little work in the buildsys.  Currently
> every job has the same importance, and testing targets shouldn't.

More than just the code is the policy...  unless we just imply priority
based on target.  Trying to do something where package authors attempt
to set priority seems overkill and complicated.  If we keep it simple
and base priority on the target (e.g. FC-4 over testing/scratch) I think
it'll work out well.

> So I propose that at some point in March we do a major buildsys upgrade
> to grab plague 0.5 and give us:
> 1) depsolving (done)
> 2) real testing targets (needs a bit more work)
> 3) job priorities (to be done)
> 4) build preference (to be done)

That sounds like a plan to me.  We can take some of this to the
-buildsys list after some more discussion I think.


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