Subject: Re: pbulk resolving stage ALWAYS failes
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Aleksey Cheusov <email@example.com>
Date: 12/22/2007 16:10:51
>> I stated that ALL bugs have the same priority, all they should be
>> fixed, all they should be visible (e.g. reported by pbulk), but
>> neither of them should lead to stop ENTIRE bulk build.
> Instead of stating should this and should that, why don't you implement
> the suggested change and post a diff.
Because I know EXACTLY that Joerg WILL NOT apply it. I decide to make
a discussion a bit more open.
BTW, 50% of the PRs sent months ago are still open, most of them
contains a patch. Not all of them are ideal but many are good enough
to be applied. But now most of them are close to be forgottren. So?
> There could even be a configuration switch to toggle the
> feature. That way developers and bulkbuilders can pick the behaviour
> they want.
There is no need for any switch/option. pbulk already have several
"exit statuses" for failures like
"failed(pre,clean,configure,build,install,checksum etc.)", magic
"prefailed", "indirect-failed" etc. (last two are not so informative as
they should be :-( ). Add a new one: "bad dependancy" and read pbulk logs.
> But the core problem from my point of view isn't that it stops,
> it's that bmake isn't very efficient at what it does, CPU-wise.
This is completely different problem and should have completely
Best regards, Aleksey Cheusov.