[Dev] [Monthy tech talk] December 2014
hahj87 at gmail.com
Wed Dec 10 00:03:51 GMT 2014
I also believe that we should aim for packages to be autobuilt and tested.
Michał Masłowski <mtjm at mtjm.eu> writes:
>> - If packagers:
>> - That's a lot more work, and I think encourages people to be
> I believe we should aim for packages not being built by packagers on
> their systems.
>> - If autobuilder:
>> - I think that this hugely increases the risk of releasing a
>> broken package, if there isn't human intervention. Right
>> now, autobuilder is only used for extremely simple packages.
> Can we detect enough broken packages automatically? (Other distros run
> tests after the build.) We had no testing on mips64el, we still have no
> testing for interactions between Arch and Parabola packages.
>> - How do we handle signing? Do we pass through the sigs of Arch
>> developers in any way?
> Have one key for all packages, make the build server sign the packages
> that it gets? Use developer keys only for packages sent to the build
> server? (This is needed to fix the usual missing key issues.)
>> - Where would it run? That would be a lot of load to put on the
>> main server.
>> - We could build a job server, where a packager has a daemon
>> that gets jobs from the main server, and runs them locally.
>> That makes signing more complex (each dev needs 2 keys; one
>> for normal builds, one for autobuilder builds), and means
>> way more code to be written.
> This looks too complex, while it won't be simpler with e.g. two central
> build servers (or one that is easy to replace).
> Dev mailing list
> Dev at lists.parabola.nu
More information about the Dev