Which distroseries should the Daily Builds PPA target?

[Max Bowsher]

On 08/08/12 10:10, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 09:56:45AM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> On 25/07/12 11:06, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:44:29AM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 09:20:51AM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
>>>>>> Currently, the Daily Builds PPA attempts to target all distroseries from
>>>>>> lucid onwards, which haven't been removed from Launchpad's recipe
>>>>>> offering due to EOL (i.e. maverick).
> 
>>>>>> But, the Daily Builds PPA isn't exactly in good shape, and even the main
>>>>>> 'bzr' package itself has been failing to build there for a while.
> 
>>>>>> I'd like to propose that we drop lucid and natty support in the Daily
>>>>>> Builds PPA, leaving it with just oneiric and precise.
> 
>>>>>> Part of the motivation is because natty is currently where backport pain
>>>>>> currently tends to start; but also, it seems fairly unlikely that people
>>>>>> would want to run daily builds on something older than the current LTS
>>>>>> or current or previous normal release.
> 
>>>> On 25/07/12 10:28, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
>>>>> I'd rather keep lucid and natty around, at least for the moment.
> 
>>>>> Fixing them isn't *that* hard, it's just that nobody has spent the 30
>>>>> to 60 minutes doing so, and it'll be a lot harder to add them back later if
>>>>> they are removed.
> 
>>>> OOI, who do you see as the expected audience for such builds?
> 
>>> I don't have a clear idea of who might be using those packages. In
>>> the past we've had people ask about broken daily builds for older
>>> distroseries, so I'd rather err on the side of caution.
> 
>> But we're not erring on the side of caution; we aren't even putting in
>> the effort to fix the precise daily build of bzr itself, despite it
>> being broken for over a month.
> 
>> I think we need to scale back the scope of what we're trying to do with
>> the daily ppa so we can keep up with maintaining it in good working order.
> 
>> Unless someone can speak up with having an actual use case for daily
>> builds on ancient Ubuntu series, why should we bother sinking resources
>> into them?
> 
> It does seem silly to try to build them even if we're aware they're
> broken. Perhaps we can just disable them rather than remove them completely, to
> make it easier to re-enable them later.

How about removing the packages from the PPA (if they FTBFS, they're a
distraction to anyone reviewing things needing fixing; if they didn't
FTBFS, they're stale and misleading) but keeping the recipe definitions
around?

Max.



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20120808/b024d332/attachment.pgp>