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.
--
dwmw2