Quantal archive rebuild proposal

[Micah Gersten]

On 04/27/2012 05:46 PM, Micah Gersten wrote:
> On 04/27/2012 05:20 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> On Friday, April 27, 2012 05:13:21 PM Micah Gersten wrote:
>>> Now that we have the faster i386/amd64 buildds, I'd like to suggest at
>>> least one extra rebuild earlier in the cycle at least for i386/amd64 so
>>> there's time to get these changes upstream.
>>>
>>> Around alpha 1 ~ June 7 (archive raw, lots of failures, should catch
>>> most of the Ubuntu change related gcc-4.7 issues though)
>>> After Feature freeze ~ Aug 23 (archive should be fairly stable for most
>>> dependency trees, check to see what new failures were introduced through
>>> new upstream versions)
>>> During beta 2 freeze ~ Sep 25 (shake out the last round of failures)
>> My initial reaction is that we're learning plenty from the existing rebuilds.  
>> There's no real need to add to the pile of work we don't have time to do.
>>
>> The rebuilds do have a negative effect on distro development because, even 
>> though they have a low priority in Soyuz, when all the builders are full due 
>> to rebuild packages being built nothing can start until one of the rebuild 
>> packages finishes.  Since they build in alphabetical order, about the time you 
>> hit gcc*, this can really slow things up.
>>
>> I would not add more rebuilds unless it's really clear there will be benefit.  
>> Until after DIF much of what turns up in a rebuild is inevitably archive skew 
>> that it's not hard to find other ways.
>>
>> Scott K
>>
> Now that we can use -proposed during development, the only arch skew
> should be from autosyncs.  The current failures do tell us a lot, but
> quite a few will probably be fixed with the autosyncs as well.
> Remaining failures from the last rebuild in precise:
>
> 	Main archive 	Ports archive
> i386 	amd64 	armhf
> arch (F) 	Package failed to build 	<="" td="">
> 	<="" td="">
> 	<="" td="">
> arch (M) 	Package is waiting on another package 	<="" td="">
> 	<="" td="">
> 	<="" td="">
>
>
> So, most of the armhf failures are related to gnat-4.6 not being
> available.  That leaves a little more than 100 failures some of which
> will be resolved with autosyncs (also most are probably not easy
> fixes).  A new rebuild would give people a chance to pick off easy
> fixes and also let us know where we stand WRT new failures early on.
> So, maybe we should wait until after DIF, then there would be very
> little risk of archive skew during the rebuild.
> Another thing to consider, is with Debian freezing for Wheezy at some
> point, the likelihood of fixes from new upstream versions getting in
> through Debian decreases as we get further into the cycle.
>
> Micah
>
>
Sorry, the numbers were apparently lost on send:
                                                    Failure type    
Main archive     Ports archive
                                                                       
     i386    amd64    armhf
arch (F)     Package failed to build                          116     85
    148
arch (M)     Package is waiting on another package     9     7     105
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20120427/a042099f/attachment-0001.html>