Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-factory (1134 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-factory] Build cycles versus rebuild="local"
On 27.06.2012 10:01, Michal Vyskocil wrote:
Hallo all,

as a Java package maintainer I did a lot of work to avoid bootstrapping
issues (aka build cycles) in openSUSE. That ends in a situation we have
been never able to submit maven into build service, because it creates a
**huge** list of dependencies, so with rebuild="transitive" it will kill
any cluster we will find a budget for ;-)

However with a newly introduced Scheduling Strategies feature, collo
have used rebuild="local" for Factory, so now we have the cycles in
Factory [2]. But probably because of the changed scheduling strategy,
coolo did not blame me as in a past for cycles I've introduced in a
past. But maybe both are tiny comparing to acl->zlib.

Did we changed the approach here? Especially Java packages, where cycles
exists in upstream and no one other takes a care it will be a huge step
forward. And in this case it even do not block the bootstrapping to an
another architecture, as packages are mostly noarch, so can be used
everywhere.

BTW: for Java packages we can be even more relaxed and use
rebuild="manual" and did it only on major jdk change as we did yet
jdk6->jdk7.

I do care for cycles as they are a problem. Not for factory, but for
staging project(s). But I basically gave up on java, that's true. I
spent so many hours trying to find a solution for it, that it's just not
worth it ;(

But unless we leave java stuff out of factory, we have to find a way
to build it in projects with transitive rebuilds.

Greetings, Stephan

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups
References