From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99169138A6C for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 00:35:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 310A4E08C0; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 00:35:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ie0-f178.google.com (mail-ie0-f178.google.com [209.85.223.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 711F4E08C0 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 00:35:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iebmp1 with SMTP id mp1so61764487ieb.0 for ; Tue, 07 Apr 2015 17:35:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=XbKH5xJ2BR1zDvI1j+IcavXspWIQh1sDeD06OdLOwNA=; b=Cidb2qunAvaOGjMJzyth3H+iTtqVAqjj5CYLIyYHKJTNaKm1OlTK4SouEcKcPnEy2T DOLEXEzGZ6fk5OcD5ByknOvC09fYB2QODEh++wMf7sln1+NBJkREcK9vfdC7C9yEtlLy P3fftSIXG9xwAwIa9dGl2wGVQqnfiyBDX4WEAn63rzSuch6TQCzCpvregRQkoyzd0lHW ocwHdR8zGaXYNs/b6WtKWhmXWbFu9Glr/n0AAgmkfy4OIIphvfYLNZc6E4Lis5V4J6i2 bzmvYGGH4S2/cVHH8badRRcAzBOotgreE7QiRfvVvKwnv0zYMNo/ll1qPpgussUhoehh eY2Q== Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.38.17 with SMTP id m17mr33924226iom.84.1428453327728; Tue, 07 Apr 2015 17:35:27 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.107.48.198 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 17:35:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20150402141428.GA31638@oregano.home.lan> <201504032214.01310.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <20150404220205.GA415@linux1> <1428237147.22472.1.camel@gentoo.org> <20150405195044.GA2917@linux1> <20150406002706.4aff7e4dda27a25a5c106b50@gentoo.org> <5521BF9C.5060809@gentoo.org> <1428353540.2041.11.camel@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 20:35:27 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 75VbJTGd6Yj7nM4bG6JLTFUxzFw Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Council meeting 2015-04-14: call for agenda items From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: c0bc2b00-a9d5-4545-adeb-2a247f724df3 X-Archives-Hash: 70eb5a3b27dc83d5f251c07579e85844 On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Matt Turner wrote: > On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Matt Turner wrote: >>> I've wanted for a long time a system that can help reduce the time I >>> have to sit in front of a computer waiting for things to finish >>> compiling before I can test them. Trawl bugzilla, grab package lists, >>> go build binpkgs. Just let me grab binpkgs and actually test the >>> software... >> >> I approve, and I'm sure the rest of the Council will too. When will >> you have it ready? > > I don't think it's some pie-in-the-sky fantasy that you can quip "when > will you have it ready?" about. It doesn't have to be a fantasy to ask when it will be ready. In fact, the question is more meaningful if it can actually be done. Maintainers are suffering with a problem now. Unless we really think a solution is about to emerge, it doesn't make sense to delay. If you have reason to think a solution is about to emerge, speak up. > > Isn't, in fact, this something like what Zorry is working on? He > mentioned in 10 days ago in "[gentoo-dev] Cluster tinderbox poc" This might be promising, but right now all it does is build packages. Presumably you'll want it to build using the right libraries so that the binpkg will run on stable, and make the binpkg downloadable, some wrappers, and so on. If it is using VMs and not emulated machines, then you need to have multiple instances of this thing for each target arch. You'll want some kind of bugzilla tie-in if you want the thing to have already built the stablereq package when you first go to look at it, otherwise you're going to have to queue up a build, and if you're going to do that, why not just build it on your own box? Don't get me wrong - I think it is a good idea, and tinderboxing is great for a lot of things. I just don't know that it is really a solution to the problem of "I don't want to build stablereq packages myself" and even if it were it seems like this months away from being a solution for something like sparc (anybody have a 64-core sparc sitting around?). > > I'm lamenting the fact that ~30 emails in no one has even appeared to > wonder out loud if there's actually a technical solution to the > problem. Instead we're debating the merits of unkeywording whole > subtrees. > Tinderboxes are useful for build tests, or for running automated tests. When I'm arch testing the build time is usually the least of my concerns. I can just open screen and launch emerge -1 pkg in each of a bunch of windows, then in a bit go and test each one. It is the testing that really takes the time. If you're just going to compile test then the tinderbox is fine, but then you might as well bypass the arch team entirely. The one place where I wouldn't mind having binary packages handy would be for stuff like chromium or libreoffice, or maybe for testing a whole gnome release or something. And if we're going to be building binary packages, we might as well mirror them and let the users make use of them if they're sticking to the targeted profile. It just isn't a trivial problem. I think it is great that you're bringing it up, but you don't need to criticize others for not having proposed it first. -- Rich