Hey all, For packaging we now rely on external parties to keep the source code hosted which can be a problem and some packagers want to search through all our packages code. [1] Currently we already archive sources using `sourceballs` on repos.archlinux.org for GPL licensed packages, this is limited to a subset of all packages and done after the fact (A timer which runs every 8 hours and part of dbscripts). sourceballs calls `makepkg --nocolor --allsource --ignorearch --skippgpcheck`. This can be a problem as it runs after the package has been committed and it other network issues which might occur specific to the server. (ie. source cannot be downloaded where server is hosted) To make this more robust, when committing a package using communitypkg or equivalent we also rsync the sources to a location on repos.archlinux.org (Gemini). This means the sources are consistent, and this opens the ability to implement a fallback or to change devtools to look at our sources archive when building a package. That would benefit reproducible builds as well and automated rebuilds. Searching through our source code would be a next nice to have, most solutions such as sourcegraph/hound require a Git repository. [3] [4] So maybe we can hack up a repository which just git adds all directories and keeps one git commit? That should probably be not too much of a waste. But the first proposal is to first archive all our code in a way it can be consumed by a search solution. Questions: * How do we deal with archiving patches, PKGBUILD's etc. for GPL compliance (just save it next to the code?) * How do we determine when sources can be removed / cleaned up (we can't store things forever). DBscripts hooks? * Do we have enough disk space for archiving? $ du -hs 111G /srv/ftp/sources/ [jelle@gemini ~]$ df -h / Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/sdb2 19T 6.3T 12T 35% / [1] https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/ideas/-/issues/2 [2] https://sources.archlinux.org/sources/ [3] https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph [4] https://github.com/hound-search/hound/
On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 at 18:43, Jelle van der Waa
* Do we have enough disk space for archiving?
You have to take gemini's daily backups into consideration as well. They already take up a lot of backup space [1] and several hours to finish every day. I can see gemini falling over if we start processing and storing a lot more sources on it. # journalctl -o cat --since -5d --grep Duration -u borg-backup Duration: 4 hours 55 minutes 12.55 seconds Duration: 4 hours 21 minutes 40.80 seconds Duration: 4 hours 34 minutes 10.01 seconds Duration: 4 hours 41 minutes 27.67 seconds Duration: 5 hours 24 minutes 44.55 seconds # journalctl -o cat --since -5d --grep Duration -u borg-backup-offsite Duration: 4 hours 9 minutes 2.50 seconds Duration: 4 hours 24 minutes 19.42 seconds Duration: 4 hours 40 minutes 17.96 seconds Duration: 5 hours 33 minutes 47.30 seconds Duration: 8 hours 2 minutes 20.43 seconds td;dr: Best to wait until the daily backup duration drops by a lot, perhaps after more efficient package archiving is implemented (as part of repod?). The current hardlink-based archive is very disk I/O heavy (consists of over 61 million inodes). [1] borg repo size grew from 4.69 TiB on May 13th to 5.86 TiB currently; trimming the archive once a year helps a bit but the upward trend persists
On 2022-11-13 17:42:27 (+0100), Jelle van der Waa wrote:
For packaging we now rely on external parties to keep the source code hosted which can be a problem and some packagers want to search through all our packages code. [1]
Currently we already archive sources using `sourceballs` on repos.archlinux.org for GPL licensed packages, this is limited to a subset of all packages and done after the fact (A timer which runs every 8 hours and part of dbscripts). sourceballs calls `makepkg --nocolor --allsource --ignorearch --skippgpcheck`. This can be a problem as it runs after the package has been committed and it other network issues which might occur specific to the server. (ie. source cannot be downloaded where server is hosted)
I believe it would be good if the build tooling would take care of this instead and release the source tarballs to the repository management software (alongside the packages).
To make this more robust, when committing a package using communitypkg or equivalent we also rsync the sources to a location on repos.archlinux.org (Gemini). This means the sources are consistent, and this opens the ability to implement a fallback or to change devtools to look at our sources archive when building a package. That would benefit reproducible builds as well and automated rebuilds.
Searching through our source code would be a next nice to have, most solutions such as sourcegraph/hound require a Git repository. [3] [4] So maybe we can hack up a repository which just git adds all directories and keeps one git commit? That should probably be not too much of a waste. But the first proposal is to first archive all our code in a way it can be consumed by a search solution.
If I understand this correctly, you would want to add the sources (upstream and our additions for the build) of each package to one repository, or each to their own? The creation of e.g. a git repository to store the (upstream and maybe our) sources of a package I would also see on the side of the tooling creating packages and uploading artifacts to $place for releasing. As the upstream tarballs contained in the source tarball that makepkg creates are (hopefully) versioned and if we think of adding their contents to a git repository, we need to come up with a clever solution on how to deal with the changes over time. But I'm not 100% sure I understood the idea for the creation of the repository yet.
Questions:
* How do we deal with archiving patches, PKGBUILD's etc. for GPL compliance (just save it next to the code?) * How do we determine when sources can be removed / cleaned up (we can't store things forever). DBscripts hooks? * Do we have enough disk space for archiving?
An additional question I would like to add to your set of questions is: What do we do with e.g. binary only upstreams (we have a few) for which we would not want to create source repos or exclude the binary blobs? As a sidenote: For repod I have just implemented the first basic (configurable) archiving functionality for successfully added packages: https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/repod/-/merge_requests/137 This does not yet extend towards source tarballs, as they are not created by repod (also source tarballs are currently still a bit of a backburner topic), and IMHO also should not be created by it in the future either, but rather by the tooling that built and pushes the artifacts into it. FWIW, this initial functionality also does not yet concern itself with any cleanup scenario of the archived files, but with being (in structure) compatible with dbscripts. When looking at (in the future) decoupling the building of source tarballs from the software maintaining the package and source artifacts (repod in that case), this still leaves us with a scenario in which we need to deal with cleanup of archive directories (e.g. upload to internet archive for long-term storage). I see some overlap with what repod's goals are in the questions you are bringing forward and it would be great if we could sync up on that during the next repod meeting if you have time. Best, David -- https://sleepmap.de
On 11/13/22 19:37, David Runge wrote:
On 2022-11-13 17:42:27 (+0100), Jelle van der Waa wrote:
For packaging we now rely on external parties to keep the source code hosted which can be a problem and some packagers want to search through all our packages code. [1]
Currently we already archive sources using `sourceballs` on repos.archlinux.org for GPL licensed packages, this is limited to a subset of all packages and done after the fact (A timer which runs every 8 hours and part of dbscripts). sourceballs calls `makepkg --nocolor --allsource --ignorearch --skippgpcheck`. This can be a problem as it runs after the package has been committed and it other network issues which might occur specific to the server. (ie. source cannot be downloaded where server is hosted)
I believe it would be good if the build tooling would take care of this instead and release the source tarballs to the repository management software (alongside the packages).
Answer merged together into next section.
To make this more robust, when committing a package using communitypkg or equivalent we also rsync the sources to a location on repos.archlinux.org (Gemini). This means the sources are consistent, and this opens the ability to implement a fallback or to change devtools to look at our sources archive when building a package. That would benefit reproducible builds as well and automated rebuilds.
Searching through our source code would be a next nice to have, most solutions such as sourcegraph/hound require a Git repository. [3] [4] So maybe we can hack up a repository which just git adds all directories and keeps one git commit? That should probably be not too much of a waste. But the first proposal is to first archive all our code in a way it can be consumed by a search solution.
If I understand this correctly, you would want to add the sources (upstream and our additions for the build) of each package to one repository, or each to their own?
The creation of e.g. a git repository to store the (upstream and maybe our) sources of a package I would also see on the side of the tooling creating packages and uploading artifacts to $place for releasing. As the upstream tarballs contained in the source tarball that makepkg creates are (hopefully) versioned and if we think of adding their contents to a git repository, we need to come up with a clever solution on how to deal with the changes over time.
This all sounds nice and easy on a first glace, but at the end is a huge can of worms and we need to be aware of the implications: If we would tie this directly to package build tooling, this would mean packagers packaging locally will face to upload gigabytes of sources alongside the build artifacts. This includes whole git repositories or huge mono state tarballs like chromium (1.6GB). If we go this route, we would make it very hard to package anything with bigger sources locally (where downloading is much less of an issue than uploading). This route is more something that may be feasible in a future if we had migrated to fully remote building f.e. with buildbot. If we want to have this rather short term, I'd recommend we dig into how much of an issue it really would be to use decoupled source archiving like we do for GPL sources. Of cause we would have a window of opportunity to not be able to grab the sources after 8h, but I'd argue that would justify raising an alert to the package maintainer and having retry mechanisms. It's very good that Jelle is raising this question and potential issues with decoupled source archiving. But it feels a bit like we obstruct ourselves moving forward by trying to solve a (hopefully rather rare) issue of not being able to grab upstream sources after ~8 hours. My recommendation would be: - try getting the decoupled way solved, including our storage and backup problems foutrelis pointed out. - implement alerting if we fail to fetch sources, should happen rarely and it something a maintainer should look at - make use of that to feed into a source indexer so we can already leverage the advantages - once we reach a future where we have robots taking over 🤖 with more build automation, investigate into migrating the source archiving into the actual build process Cheers, Levente
On 13/11/2022 19:37, David Runge wrote:
On 2022-11-13 17:42:27 (+0100), Jelle van der Waa wrote:
For packaging we now rely on external parties to keep the source code hosted which can be a problem and some packagers want to search through all our packages code. [1]
Currently we already archive sources using `sourceballs` on repos.archlinux.org for GPL licensed packages, this is limited to a subset of all packages and done after the fact (A timer which runs every 8 hours and part of dbscripts). sourceballs calls `makepkg --nocolor --allsource --ignorearch --skippgpcheck`. This can be a problem as it runs after the package has been committed and it other network issues which might occur specific to the server. (ie. source cannot be downloaded where server is hosted)
I believe it would be good if the build tooling would take care of this instead and release the source tarballs to the repository management software (alongside the packages).
No strong opinion here, but when would it then upload? commitpkg seems the most logical entrypoint, as it has access to the source code and PKGBUILD.
To make this more robust, when committing a package using communitypkg or equivalent we also rsync the sources to a location on repos.archlinux.org (Gemini). This means the sources are consistent, and this opens the ability to implement a fallback or to change devtools to look at our sources archive when building a package. That would benefit reproducible builds as well and automated rebuilds.
Searching through our source code would be a next nice to have, most solutions such as sourcegraph/hound require a Git repository. [3] [4] So maybe we can hack up a repository which just git adds all directories and keeps one git commit? That should probably be not too much of a waste. But the first proposal is to first archive all our code in a way it can be consumed by a search solution.
If I understand this correctly, you would want to add the sources (upstream and our additions for the build) of each package to one repository, or each to their own?
No no, I never mentioned a git repository sorry for the confusion! I want to make storing the upstream sources as easy as possible. Ideally for vim it would be: https://sources.archlinux.org/sources/$pkgbase/whatever.tar.gz This way we have a way to locally provide the tarball which makepkg expects (shasum should match!). However, we also accept git sources like the linux PKGBUILD which kinda messes up my plan. So not sure how we handle that. Another issue is that we can have a package in staging which moves down to [extra]. So we should probably work out the removal process by keeping at least 3 versions of source code. Or come up with something smarter.
The creation of e.g. a git repository to store the (upstream and maybe our) sources of a package I would also see on the side of the tooling creating packages and uploading artifacts to $place for releasing. As the upstream tarballs contained in the source tarball that makepkg creates are (hopefully) versioned and if we think of adding their contents to a git repository, we need to come up with a clever solution on how to deal with the changes over time.
They are versioned, example: -rw-r--r-- 1 sourceballs sourceballs 49M May 22 13:42 zynaddsubfx-3.0.6-3.src.tar.gz
But I'm not 100% sure I understood the idea for the creation of the repository yet.
Storing tarballs in git is also not great, this note was only about searching through the packages source. Which can be solved later, we first need a consistent way to access our source code.
Questions:
* How do we deal with archiving patches, PKGBUILD's etc. for GPL compliance (just save it next to the code?) * How do we determine when sources can be removed / cleaned up (we can't store things forever). DBscripts hooks? * Do we have enough disk space for archiving?
An additional question I would like to add to your set of questions is: What do we do with e.g. binary only upstreams (we have a few) for which we would not want to create source repos or exclude the binary blobs?
So I never said I wanted the archive in a Git repo, it might be required for search but that's the next step. So for now binary sources are just as normal as source tarballs.
As a sidenote: For repod I have just implemented the first basic (configurable) archiving functionality for successfully added packages: https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/repod/-/merge_requests/137
Cool!
This does not yet extend towards source tarballs, as they are not created by repod (also source tarballs are currently still a bit of a backburner topic), and IMHO also should not be created by it in the future either, but rather by the tooling that built and pushes the artifacts into it.
Agreed.
FWIW, this initial functionality also does not yet concern itself with any cleanup scenario of the archived files, but with being (in structure) compatible with dbscripts.
For archived packages we have a script which checks if they are referenced by any package in our repository (by reading BUILDINFO) and then cleaned up. [1]
When looking at (in the future) decoupling the building of source tarballs from the software maintaining the package and source artifacts (repod in that case), this still leaves us with a scenario in which we need to deal with cleanup of archive directories (e.g. upload to internet archive for long-term storage).
I see some overlap with what repod's goals are in the questions you are bringing forward and it would be great if we could sync up on that during the next repod meeting if you have time.
I am not sure if this fits into repod and should. However, I'm happy to discuss it in the next meeting, when is it? [1] https://github.com/archlinux/archivetools/blob/master/archive-cleaner
On 2022-11-13 21:17:29 (+0100), Jelle van der Waa wrote:
https://sources.archlinux.org/sources/$pkgbase/whatever.tar.gz
They are versioned, example:
-rw-r--r-- 1 sourceballs sourceballs 49M May 22 13:42 zynaddsubfx-3.0.6-3.src.tar.gz
So I never said I wanted the archive in a Git repo, it might be required for search but that's the next step. So for now binary sources are just as normal as source tarballs.
I see. I guess I misunderstood this, as you brought up the search tooling (which is super helpful btw and I often use your hound to search for things in PKGBUILDs).
I am not sure if this fits into repod and should. However, I'm happy to discuss it in the next meeting, when is it?
As mentioned in my last mail, the source tarball consumption feature is pretty much on the backburner at the moment. However, if we indeed have our build infrastructure/ build tooling generate the source tarballs in the future, we'll eventually want to tackle consumption of these artifacts I guess. Exposing the source tarballs of the current repository packages (as outlined in your examples above) could easily be a configurable thing (like many other features [1]). The next meeting is next week Wednesday [2]. Best, David [1] https://repod.archlinux.page/repod/man/repod_conf.html [2] https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/arch-projects@lists.archlinux.org/... -- https://sleepmap.de
participants (5)
-
David Runge
-
Evangelos Foutras
-
Jelle van der Waa
-
Jelle van der Waa
-
Levente Polyak