[Dev] [Monthy tech talk] December 2014

Joshua Haase 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
>>        sloppy.
> 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[1], 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
> https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev

More information about the Dev mailing list