Plan for tomorrow's (20070604) Release Engineering meeting

[Axel Thimm]

On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 06:32:19PM +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 01:32 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 11:18:46PM +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 14:15 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > > > On Monday 04 June 2007 13:45:07 Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > > > > I thought about this, but it wouldn't ensure proper ordering between
> > > > > packages. Packager A rebuilds after Package B is done, but changes to
> > > > > Package A affect Package B's build.
> > > > 
> > > > How would a mass rebuild be any different?  A mass rebuild is likely to go 
> > > > through in either ls ordering or python hash ordering....
> > > 
> > > That needn't be the case. Packages could be built in a "from the ground
> > > up" order beginning with what's by default in the buildroots (i.e. what
> > > doesn't need to be build-required). This gets only ambiguous with cyclic
> > > build-dependencies in which case we'd have to fall back to something
> > > else (ls ordering, python hash ordering or even "bug the release
> > > engineers and let them decide" ;-)).
> > 
> > But Jesse rightfully argues that doing so requires a createrepo
> > running after each build [1], which takes 20-30 minutes. So for 4000
> > packages you would need 55-83 *days* just for createrepo.
> 
> Only if you'd do a whole createrepo for each package built. Surely it
> must be possible to take the existing repo metadata and just update them
> with that of the newly built package and surely it wouldn't take so much
> time, right?

There is a patch to do so that doesn't apply anymore to the current
createrepo sources.

But other than that: The 20-30 required minutes are what the current
buildsystem really needs to add a package to pool of BR-available
packages, yes. The patch mentioned would certainly help, but I even
have the bad feeling that it is already applied to an older createrepo
as used by the buildsystem ... :/
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20070608/567a0951/attachment.sig>