Bazaar Daily Builds

[Jelmer Vernooij]

On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 10:41 +0100, Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
> >>>>> Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer at samba.org> writes:
> 
>     > For a while I've been trying out the Launchpad daily builds on a bunch
>     > of Bazaar packages. 
> Yeah ! Well done !
> 
> I wanted to try that for a while myself :)
Great to hear I'm not the only one. :-)

>     > One of the reasons I haven't done this as part of ~bzr is that I
>     > wasn't sure if I would be able to keep these working and I don't
>     > want to create any false expectations about them being around in
>     > the future.
> Well, the nightly PPA is way behind and I consider both the nightly and
> you dailies as "tests" PPAs more than production ones. They are expected
> to break and subscribing to them strongly implies that the subscriber
> intends to fix them asap.
> 
> One difference with the niglty PPA is that you target maverick only
> (soon to be replaced with natty or natty added ?).
Source package recipes don't work for natty yet (missing chroot), but I
hope to add natty in the near future. I haven't looked at older releases
of Ubuntu simply because I wanted to see how well things worked for the
moment and adding another target series doubles the workload for the
build machines (they simply have twice as much packages to build).

>     > These recipes all merge two or three branches:
> 
>     > * upstream branch (not for "native" packages such as bzr-builddeb)
>     > * debian packaging branch (from
>     > http://bzr.debian.org/pkg-bazaar/../unstable, but imported to Launchpad)
>     > * A trivial branch which switches the Debian source format from "3.0
>     > (quilt)" to "3.0 (native)". This is to work around bug
>     > https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad-code/+bug/614768
> I wonder where we can document this...
The bug has the workaround and is pretty easy to find. I believe there
also is a page on the wiki somewhere with this information, but I
can't find it at the moment.

>     > Since we use the Debian branch it is almost never necessary to touch
>     > these recipes themselves. I was quite surprised by how well this works.
>     > I receive a couple of success emails every night (for the projects for
>     > which the trunk was updated) and an occasional build failure that I fix
>     > by updating the Debian branch (which means less work the next time I
>     > have to upload to Debian).
> So this requires write access to these branches right ? 
Yeah. Although, since we merge in two packaging branches (a Debian
branch and a branch that currently just changes the source format) fixes
could be added to either. Of course, they should eventually end up in
the Debian branch so that we can build correct Debian packages.

>     > There were a couple of bugs that I ran into that I've filed
>     > reports for, but overall it's working quite well.
> Can you post the URLs or even better tag the bugs with 'packaging' may be 
They were bugs in launchpad-code/soyuz, rather than the bzr projects.
These bugs are not necessarily all reported by me but should have the
tag "recipe".

>     > I'm not sure what the current policy is in the Bazaar team as to
>     > what PPA's are maintained.
> The nightly was a grey area to me but as mentioned above I was (and am
> even more now) keen to bring them back in the picture, especially if
> they are at a point where they build succesfully.
> 
> The obligatory question at this point is: do they run the tests ?
> 
> This is a requirement for the Ubuntu SRUs and MRE anyway so we'd better
> implement that in this PPA.
Not everywhere, but this is something that is on my todo list. Debian
policy 4.9.1 says that if "nocheck" appears in the DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS
environment variable that we should not run the build-time testsuite and
I infer from that that we should run it in all other cases. It still is
pretty hard to run only the testsuite for a particular plugin because of
the adapters etc we have (we can run of course run everything in that
plugins' namespace though, using BZR_PLUGINS_AT).

>     > I certainly don't want to make the maintainance overhead worse by
>     > adding more PPA's to maintain, but I'd be happy to change the
>     > ownership of these recipes to ~bzr if that would be useful.
> Thanks for that. I agree it is useful to know that the Ubuntu packages
> build cleanly for every tip and when they don't we should be warned
> ASAP.
> 
> If we can reach this point, then I'd say the maintenance overhead is
> *lowered*.
> 
> So, +1 from me, with my RM hat, for transferring to ~bzr but I'd like to
> hear from potential subscribers too and also from Max (who may or not
> become a subscriber ;).
Cool. I'll wait for some more responses then before possibly
transferring these.

Cheers,

Jelmer
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20101101/52734374/attachment.pgp