For your consideration: Secondary Architectures in Fedora
dwmw2 at infradead.org
Wed May 30 14:59:52 UTC 2007
On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 10:43 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 May 2007 10:33:36 David Woodhouse wrote:
> > I don't think anyone suggested that you must delay the security fix
> > while someone debugs and fixes a compiler problem like that (although
> > usually if it's a security fix it'll be a minimal patch, and any
> > compiler bug you now trigger should be fairly easy to work around).
> It's not often the new patch that triggers it. It's say a build was done in
> Jan that worked across the arches. Then gcc was updated in Feb, then May,
> and now in June we have to do a security bump for the build, only now a new
> gcc is used that is completely unable to build the package for the off
> arches, something that built just fine, only a minimal patch being added.
> This has happened in the past, and likely to happen again in the future.
Yeah. The periodic rebuilds which mdomsch does should help with that. I
must get them going on PPC some time soon.
> > The only delay you currently have is the time it takes to add the
> > ExcludeArch: to the specfile and file the ExcludeArch bug -- and then
> > for the build system to rebuild the package itself. You can even find
> > the test case and file the compiler bug (on which your ExcludeArch bug
> > will depend) _after_ you've built the new package with the ExcludeArch.
> > Has that _really_ been so much of a problem for you?
> On a build that takes 6~8 hours to complete? Yes.
There aren't many of those, thankfully.
> Yes. Adding delays in for an arch that is potentially 1% of our userbase is
> just insane.
And the number of cases where the package takes 6-8 hours to build _and_
has an arch-specific bug which should lead to an ExcludeArch _and_ we're
in a desperate hurry to release it.... you think that's more than 1%?
Seems rather a strange case to optimise for, to me.
Allowing partially-failed builds to make it through into the repo
without user intervention is insane. Failures should _always_ be
investigated. Sometimes when I've seen failures on just one arch, it's
actually been a randomly-triggered generic bug. The package-monkey
approach of adding ExcludeArch: and rebuilding will sometimes lead to it
showing up in a different arch, which built before.
If you _really_ want to optimise for the exceedingly rare case of a real
arch-specific bug in a huge package which we're _also_ in a desperate
hurry to release within a matter of hours, then at least make it so that
the ExcludeArch bug can be filed retrospectively in order to allow the
build to 'commit'. Don't let it happen automatically.
More information about the devel