[debexpo-devel] Concept work nearly done
Christoph Haas
email at christoph-haas.de
Thu May 22 22:07:15 CEST 2008
On Donnerstag, 22. Mai 2008, Jonny Lamb wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 10:43:09AM +0200, Christoph Haas wrote:
> Ah, okay, yes I like this idea. It definitely simplifies things a lot.
Good to hear that it makes sense.
> Out of interest, are you interested in running binary uploads actually
> on mentors.d.n?
Better not. I had allowed that a while ago but aside from wasting a lot of
disk space I received lots of complaints from users about buggy packages.
It appeared like end-users used the mentors.debian.net repository to get
the newest possible binary packages. Since I throw away binary packages
that get uploaded and just keep the source packages I have never again had
such a complaint. So I would keep throwing away the binary packages that
get accidentally uploaded and just check and store the source packages.
Other people will probably decide to run a debexpo repository with only
binary packages. And uploaded source package will have to be built
automatically (I think the PPA was supposed to do that).
> Another thing, binary uploads are simple to define, *but* source uploads
> could one of two definitions:
>
> * only upload source files (I.e. use dpkg-buildpackage -S). This is the
> current behaviour of mentors.d.n.
> * always upload binary but discard *.deb files.
Actually m.d.n just takes the source package and throws away everything
else.
What do you mean by "always upload binary but discard *.deb files"? You
mean upload both and discard the binary packages?
> The latter way is slightly the way that ftp-master works, except it
> doesn't discard *.deb files.
At the moment package maintainers are even required to upload a binary
package along with the source package. Besides from saving a few CPU
cycles on the buildd servers I don't think it's a good idea. To get sane
and clean packages I think ftp-master should only accept source uploads.
> I have read that they would like to discard
> the *.deb files but don't have the buildd power to do that. The point of
> forcing binary uploads but discarding the *.deb is it forces the
> maintainer to actually try building the package. Apparently, when Ubuntu
> switched to source-only uploads (dpkg-buildpackage -S), there were many
> packages that were uploaded but hadn't even been built to test if they
> work... Thoughts? I don't really mind either way, but it's something to
> think about.
No idea what is the best way. So... make it configurable?
> [Yeah, that's right, I've been reading the dak source and its docs! :-)]
You are sick. :)
> A fairly big change here, but not a big change to the database schema. I
> hope I haven't missed anything out.. Here is an updated schema:
>
> http://jdl.ducs.org.uk/misc/debexpo-db-3.png
Suggestions:
package_sources:
- rename to source_packages
package_binary:
- rename to binary_packages
- arch: perhaps make it a string? or you would have to hardcode the
architecture names. and architectures in Debian tend to change from
release to release
- same for "section" and "component"
Cheers
Christoph
--
When you do things right people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://workaround.org/pipermail/debexpo-devel/attachments/20080522/40d72c65/attachment.pgp
More information about the debexpo-devel
mailing list