From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: Dealing with mass rebuilds Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:45:44 +0200 Message-ID: <87fv149nlz.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20151020161651.4759.8347@vcs.savannah.gnu.org> <87zizd2ymv.fsf@netris.org> <8737x5e32l.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <20151020214716.GA7835@debian> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49759) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZowWN-00074X-Ih for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 12:45:52 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZowWJ-0001Ni-PP for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 12:45:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20151020214716.GA7835@debian> (Andreas Enge's message of "Tue, 20 Oct 2015 23:47:16 +0200") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Andreas Enge Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Andreas Enge skribis: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 09:45:54PM +0200, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: >> The Nixpkgs folks have a =E2=80=98staging=E2=80=99 branch for changes th= at cause mass >> rebuilds but are well tested, such that they can be merged into =E2=80= =98master=E2=80=99 >> anytime=C2=B2. Perhaps something we should do as well? > > Would that be different from your suggestion that if the curl update caus= ed > a rebuild of too many packages (whatever that would mean, which is a sepa= rate > discussion) it should not be done on core-updates, but on its own branch, > for instance, curl-update? One practical advantage I see in a staging > branch, if I understand your suggestion correctly, is that one would not = need > to modify the set of jobs on hydra to now also build curl-update, and then > maybe giflib-update, and then xyz-update, but it would always be called > "staging". Yes. > Now the "well tested" assumption is dubious. I actually do not know wheth= er > the curl update will go through. I tried to build one of the packages sho= wn > by "guix refresh -l curl" that looked simple (mpd), but it turned out it > was not simple at all and needed a lot of rebuilds (including texlive). > Admittedly, I could have spent more time searching a direct dependency, > probably by using one of your recent graph drawing commands. So in case > a problem turns up, would we revert a curl update on the staging branch > and do more local work before proposing it again? Ideally, we=E2=80=99d test as much as possible locally, or, for important library updates, in a dedicated branch. The TeX Live issue is orthogonal: We seriously need a =E2=80=98texlive-mini= mal=E2=80=99 variant, and the full-blown =E2=80=98texlive=E2=80=99 must not be depended = on by any other package. > And if Efraim wished to do a gitlib update after my curl update, what wou= ld > be the protocol? Would he be expected to wait until the hydra build of the > curl update has finished? Or at least until it has finished on x86_64? > Otherwise, we would again face the risk of the staging branch becoming > an update-the-world branch with unforeseen ramifications. Yeah, for sure. I have to admit that we may be unable to do much better until we can finally change the hydra.gnu.org front-end, which is the main bottleneck here (at least for i686/x86_64.) Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.