On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 12:32, Pavel Raiskup <praiskup@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, August 12, 2020 11:19:00 AM CEST Iñaki Ucar wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 10:29, Pavel Raiskup <praiskup@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > - Copr newly provides a build-time macro %buildtag. Its format is
> > > `.copr<BUILD_ID>` and is useable for auto-incrementing the package's NVR
> > > in subsequent builds. It may be used in spec file like:
> > >
> > > Release: 1%{?dist}%{?buildtag}
> > >
> > > It could be useful as good-enough alternative for the Release
> > > auto-bumping proposal. See the fedora devel discussion [2] for more
> > > info. This is not any kind of encouragement to use it. We added it
> > > there to easy testing your ideas about the automatic filling of the
> > > Release tag.
> >
> > Nice one! I understand that having a mix of builds with and without
> > this tag isn't an issue, right? I.e., would
> > <pkg>-<version>-<release>.copr<id>.fcXX be picked as an update of
> > <pkg>-<version>-<release>.fcXX? Or do we need to rebuild all with the
> > new tag and remove the old ones?
>
> No need to do batch-updates.
>
> $ rpmdev-vercmp 1-1.fc32.copr1234 1-1.fc32
> 1-1.fc32.copr1234 > 1-1.fc32
>
> But note I proposed to use %buildtag after %dist, not vice versa. Moving
> %buildtag before %dist would mean that we loose the benefit of dist
> tag -- when both fcNN and fcNN-1 builds exist in multiple repositories
> (notable example is 'fedora' and 'updates') fcNN is the preferred variant
> for installation.
Oh, yeap, right, I pasted the dist tag in the wrong place.
> > > - All the background jobs have now a lower priority than normal jobs.
> > > Previously, background source builds were still prioritized over normal
> > > builds. This should be the last step towards a fair build scheduler.
> >
> > Change of mind? My understanding from the last time we discussed this
> > was that source builds needed to be prioritized no matter what.
>
> No problems to admit a change of mind ;-) that happens all the time.
:)
> Mainly I was afraid that source background builds will eat too much of the
> frontend storage. But there don't seem to be that huge performance
> problems, and that worry was probably a bit over-pessimistic.
I think both options are fine (background source builds with higher or
lower priority), as I said in prior discussions, provided that
non-background normal builds get prioritized over background normal
builds. :)
--
Iñaki Úcar
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
