[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Priority binary packages
In wip/distbb the order of build corresponds to a "weight" of the package.
This weight is calculared from source tarball size, language (C++) and
package's dependencies (the more heavy deps, the sooner package is
This is in order to minimize total build time in a cluster.
By changing these weights one can easily change
the build order, for example, one can build more important/popular
If all packages are built for months for slow archs one can
periodically build pkg_summary.txt and upload them to ftp server.
Partial bulk builds are also supported, one can explicitely specify
list of packages to build.
2010/12/6 David Brownlee <abs%absd.org@localhost>:
> "All packages are equal, but some packages are more equal than others..."
> Fast architectures can reasonably expect to have recent binary
> packages available, but for slower systems (where binary packages are
> more useful), its not possible to build all of pkgsrc before the next
> quarter release.
> Would there be any sense in marking some packages as "priority", and
> targetting them first in bulk builds, and paying more attention to
> them for update & breakages?
> I'm aware this could be opening a can of worms as your critical
> package is my useless bloated piece of cruft, but I suspect there
> could be a workable set including some shells, a web server, a couple
> of databases, base packages for scripting languages (php, perl,
> python, ruby). For desktops some window managers, web browser, image
> Actually, it might almost make sense to just put together a few meta
> packages. What do people think?
Main Index |
Thread Index |