On Sat, 2007-03-10 at 16:47 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Oliver Falk schrieb: > > Thorsten Leemhuis schrieb: > >> Users of i386 and x86_64 that update daily would have had two package > >> updates without any benefit for them :-( I'd like to aoid that if easily > >> possible. > > > > Thorsten; Very good point, didn't even think about this possibility... > > Maybe some extra step from (co-)maintainers and/or sub-arch maintainers > > is needed here to finally push the package!? > > I think with the new updates system luke is working on we'll get a > seperate "push" step for each package (correct me if I'm wrong) . We > just need to tell packagers to wait a bit with pushing their packages in > case build failed one some of the secondary archs. Alternately, we might decide that it's sane not to push every update to every arch. So a commit by a secondary arch might be built for x86_64 and i386 but not pushed to the update repo. Note that I haven't thought long and hard about whether this is sane, just that if it is sane, it would be another way of taking care of the problem. This could come into play for security updates. In that case, we'd want to build and push as quickly as possible. A secondary arch that had a broken build as a result would want to fix and rebuild as quickly as they could. Not pushing for the primary arch in that case would allow us to avoid the double download. On the debit side, this kind of thing means that a maintainer might make a release that runs on the primary arches. Then a secondary arch commits a fix for their arch and builds but the fix causes runtime bugs for the primary arch (buildtime will be caught because we'll build for all arches anyway.) This won't be caught until the next time the primary arch is updated and pushed.... -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
