From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2020 00:10:49 +0300 From: "Dmitry V. Levin" To: ALT Devel discussion list Message-ID: <20200613211049.GC24260@altlinux.org> References: <20200604195811.3881130-1-vseleznv@altlinux.org> <20200604195811.3881130-2-vseleznv@altlinux.org> <20200605142254.GA4019241@portlab> <20200613174519.GB22306@altlinux.org> <20200613215037.8df524060960dbf33fd37479@altlinux.org> <20200613204838.GA24260@altlinux.org> <20200613235708.bb042fff7f3dd9c7a885a72b@altlinux.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200613235708.bb042fff7f3dd9c7a885a72b@altlinux.org> Subject: Re: [devel] [PATCH] gb: add gb-task-build-post, optimize packages with identical rebuild X-BeenThere: devel@lists.altlinux.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ALT Linux Team development discussions List-Id: ALT Linux Team development discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2020 21:10:50 -0000 Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 11:57:08PM +0300, Andrey Savchenko wrote: > On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 23:48:38 +0300 Dmitry V. Levin wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 09:50:37PM +0300, Andrey Savchenko wrote: > > > On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 20:45:19 +0300 Dmitry V. Levin wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jun 06, 2020 at 04:42:21PM +0300, Alexey Tourbin wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 5:23 PM Vladimir D. Seleznev wrote: > > > > > > > > Introduce task post-build processing. It finds subtasks with package > > > > > > > > rebuild and if the rebuilt packages identical to the same packages in > > > > > > > > the target repo it optimizes them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't make much sense. When we rebuild a package without changing > > > > > > > the release, we expect something else in the package to change because > > > > > > > of the rebuild (e.g. a binary will be linked with a new library > > > > > > > version). If the package hasn't changed, it is an alarming condition > > > > > > > which indicates that some of the packager's assumptions were wrong > > > > > > > (e.g. the binary actually doesn't link with the library). So should we > > > > > > > really "optimize" this case? We might as well prohibit it! > > > > > > > > > > > > By "prohibit" you mean make task build fail? I would say that it is > > > > > > unnecessary. It'd produce additional difficulties for maintainers > > > > > > without any profit. > > > > > > > > > > The difficulties are all in the maintainers' heads. > > > > > There must be a valid reason for rebuilding a package. > > > > > > > > Given that rebuilding a package costs so little for the maintainer, > > > > we definitely should reject rebuilds that do not result to changed > > > > packages. > > > > > > There are valid cases when it is impossible to determine beforehand > > > if rebuild will result in changed package or not, e.g. during boost > > > updates. > > > > So what? Failed build is not a crime, let it fail. > > Intentionally wasted maintainer's time is a huge crime. Let a > machine work instead of a human, this way we can be more productive. I suppose packages are built for a reason, so every unchanged build must be a mistake, and I read this as an argument to fail such builds. -- ldv