Which distroseries should the Daily Builds PPA target?

[Robert Collins]

+1

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Max Bowsher <_ at maxb.eu> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>