When package y depends on package x and package x is updated, there are essentially two clean ways to divide up responsibility for rebuilding dependent package(s) y:
1) the package y maintainer(s) notices package x in testing and rebuilds package y
2) the package x maintainer(s) is responsible to find all packages y and rebuilds all such packages y against the new package x
I've seen many variations on how this gets handled over the last three or four years as a a developer, and we usually just try to do what makes things best for most people, but it's good to have some idea what to expect in general. We all want to do what's best for the most people, but it's not always clear what that is.
A merit of #1 is that the actual maintainers of the dependent packages, who can sanity check and test the new dependency, are involved in making sure the packages get built and function correctly against the new version of dependent software. A downside is that this is likely to take some time-- the dependent package maintainers need to notice the dependency update, have time, and do the update properly.
A merit of #2 is that the updates get done quickly. A disadvantage is that they may not be done correctly, possibly even introducing uncaught security holes or result in data loss. Another disadvantage is that for really core low-level packages (like glibc or even something like sqlite), the number of rebuilds is potentially huge and the likelihood of getting things wrong is even larger, and it will be increasingly hard to get people to agree to maintain those low-level packages because of the amount of work involved.
How have people generally been approaching this issue and with what rationale? As a starting point, in absence of other communication, I generally expect developers to rebuild and test their own packages when their dependencies are upgraded, but perhaps I'm in the minority.
I think we should be sensitive to the general number and kind of dependencies we have on packages we maintain, and make sure to put those things into testing to give other developers lots of time to rebuild and test against them, but not assume we each have sufficient knowledge and experience to rebuild any of the potentially vast spectrum of dependent packages with any reasonable certainty they will work.
- P
On Dec 30, 2007 11:37 PM, Paul Mattal paul@mattal.com wrote:
- the package y maintainer(s) notices package x in testing and rebuilds
package y
- the package x maintainer(s) is responsible to find all packages y and
rebuilds all such packages y against the new package x
There's a middle-ground here which I like, myself. 1.5) the package x maintainer(s) is responsible to find all packages y and posts a todo list on the dashboard
I like this method, but at the same time, it requires one to constantly scan the todo lists to see if a package of yours is there.
Do we have any other options, or is it just there 2 (3) ?
I'd prefer to go with "easiest" in these cases, because some of these rebuilds can be big.
Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Dec 30, 2007 11:37 PM, Paul Mattal paul@mattal.com wrote:
- the package y maintainer(s) notices package x in testing and rebuilds
package y
- the package x maintainer(s) is responsible to find all packages y and
rebuilds all such packages y against the new package x
There's a middle-ground here which I like, myself. 1.5) the package x maintainer(s) is responsible to find all packages y and posts a todo list on the dashboard
I like this method, but at the same time, it requires one to constantly scan the todo lists to see if a package of yours is there.
A slight variation on this is to the todo list + what Damir did.. post to a todo list and *also* put a post on the arch-dev-public list. This way people get push notification, and also a place to track what they've done and what they haven't.
- P
On Jan 4, 2008 9:18 AM, Paul Mattal paul@mattal.com wrote:
Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Dec 30, 2007 11:37 PM, Paul Mattal paul@mattal.com wrote:
- the package y maintainer(s) notices package x in testing and rebuilds
package y
- the package x maintainer(s) is responsible to find all packages y and
rebuilds all such packages y against the new package x
There's a middle-ground here which I like, myself. 1.5) the package x maintainer(s) is responsible to find all packages y and posts a todo list on the dashboard
I like this method, but at the same time, it requires one to constantly scan the todo lists to see if a package of yours is there.
A slight variation on this is to the todo list + what Damir did.. post to a todo list and *also* put a post on the arch-dev-public list. This way people get push notification, and also a place to track what they've done and what they haven't.
I like this one.
So ok, let me propose this: With rebuilds, it's the library maintainer's job to find all dep packages. There are then two choices: * build everything yourself, if you feel like it (yay!) * make a todolist and post on the arch-dev-public ML so we know that there is a new rebuild todolist.
Sound like a good process?
On Jan 4, 2008 2:36 PM, Aaron Griffin aaronmgriffin@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008 9:18 AM, Paul Mattal paul@mattal.com wrote:
Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Dec 30, 2007 11:37 PM, Paul Mattal paul@mattal.com wrote:
- the package y maintainer(s) notices package x in testing and
rebuilds
package y
- the package x maintainer(s) is responsible to find all packages y
and
rebuilds all such packages y against the new package x
There's a middle-ground here which I like, myself. 1.5) the package x maintainer(s) is responsible to find all packages y and posts a todo list on the dashboard
I like this method, but at the same time, it requires one to constantly scan the todo lists to see if a package of yours is there.
A slight variation on this is to the todo list + what Damir did.. post to a todo list and *also* put a post on the arch-dev-public list. This way people get push notification, and also a place to track what they've done and what they haven't.
I like this one.
So ok, let me propose this: With rebuilds, it's the library maintainer's job to find all dep packages. There are then two choices:
- build everything yourself, if you feel like it (yay!)
- make a todolist and post on the arch-dev-public ML so we know
that there is a new rebuild todolist.
Sound like a good process?
+1 from me.
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 01:36:03PM -0600, Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008 9:18 AM, Paul Mattal paul@mattal.com wrote:
Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Dec 30, 2007 11:37 PM, Paul Mattal paul@mattal.com wrote:
- the package y maintainer(s) notices package x in testing and rebuilds
package y
- the package x maintainer(s) is responsible to find all packages y and
rebuilds all such packages y against the new package x
There's a middle-ground here which I like, myself. 1.5) the package x maintainer(s) is responsible to find all packages y and posts a todo list on the dashboard
I like this method, but at the same time, it requires one to constantly scan the todo lists to see if a package of yours is there.
A slight variation on this is to the todo list + what Damir did.. post to a todo list and *also* put a post on the arch-dev-public list. This way people get push notification, and also a place to track what they've done and what they haven't.
I like this one.
So ok, let me propose this: With rebuilds, it's the library maintainer's job to find all dep packages. There are then two choices:
- build everything yourself, if you feel like it (yay!)
- make a todolist and post on the arch-dev-public ML so we know
that there is a new rebuild todolist.
Sound like a good process?
+1
Jason
On Jan 4, 2008 1:36 PM, Aaron Griffin aaronmgriffin@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008 9:18 AM, Paul Mattal paul@mattal.com wrote:
Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Dec 30, 2007 11:37 PM, Paul Mattal paul@mattal.com wrote:
- the package y maintainer(s) notices package x in testing and rebuilds
package y
- the package x maintainer(s) is responsible to find all packages y and
rebuilds all such packages y against the new package x
There's a middle-ground here which I like, myself. 1.5) the package x maintainer(s) is responsible to find all packages y and posts a todo list on the dashboard
I like this method, but at the same time, it requires one to constantly scan the todo lists to see if a package of yours is there.
A slight variation on this is to the todo list + what Damir did.. post to a todo list and *also* put a post on the arch-dev-public list. This way people get push notification, and also a place to track what they've done and what they haven't.
I like this one.
So ok, let me propose this: With rebuilds, it's the library maintainer's job to find all dep packages. There are then two choices:
- build everything yourself, if you feel like it (yay!)
- make a todolist and post on the arch-dev-public ML so we know
that there is a new rebuild todolist.
Sound like a good process?
+1. And if you are unsure about a package rebuild, push it to testing and ask for a signoff from the maintainer (or anyone else).
-Dan
On Jan 5, 2008 1:06 AM, Aaron Griffin aaronmgriffin@gmail.com wrote:
So ok, let me propose this: With rebuilds, it's the library maintainer's job to find all dep packages. There are then two choices:
- build everything yourself, if you feel like it (yay!)
- make a todolist and post on the arch-dev-public ML so we know
that there is a new rebuild todolist.
Sound like a good process?
+1
Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008 9:18 AM, Paul Mattal paul@mattal.com wrote:
Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Dec 30, 2007 11:37 PM, Paul Mattal paul@mattal.com wrote:
- the package y maintainer(s) notices package x in testing and rebuilds
package y
- the package x maintainer(s) is responsible to find all packages y and
rebuilds all such packages y against the new package x
There's a middle-ground here which I like, myself. 1.5) the package x maintainer(s) is responsible to find all packages y and posts a todo list on the dashboard
I like this method, but at the same time, it requires one to constantly scan the todo lists to see if a package of yours is there.
A slight variation on this is to the todo list + what Damir did.. post to a todo list and *also* put a post on the arch-dev-public list. This way people get push notification, and also a place to track what they've done and what they haven't.
I like this one.
So ok, let me propose this: With rebuilds, it's the library maintainer's job to find all dep packages. There are then two choices:
- build everything yourself, if you feel like it (yay!)
- make a todolist and post on the arch-dev-public ML so we know
that there is a new rebuild todolist.
Sounds good. Put the package list, with the following observations:
* if you decide to build everything yourself, think about that first and want to take that responsibility; releasing is more than just rebuilding, and by rebuilding you potentially break something and thereby take on responsibility to fix it in relatively short order (even if it's just in testing) * generally make sure the emailed todo list actually contains the list of packages, or at minimum a direct link to the todo list; it gives people no excuse not to notice
Thanks for working this through with me. I hope others will consider and adopt some of these practices, or make some suggestions for how to change them.
- P
Paul Mattal wrote:
Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008 9:18 AM, Paul Mattal paul@mattal.com wrote:
Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Dec 30, 2007 11:37 PM, Paul Mattal paul@mattal.com wrote:
- the package y maintainer(s) notices package x in testing and
rebuilds package y
- the package x maintainer(s) is responsible to find all packages
y and rebuilds all such packages y against the new package x
There's a middle-ground here which I like, myself. 1.5) the package x maintainer(s) is responsible to find all packages y and posts a todo list on the dashboard
I like this method, but at the same time, it requires one to constantly scan the todo lists to see if a package of yours is there.
A slight variation on this is to the todo list + what Damir did.. post to a todo list and *also* put a post on the arch-dev-public list. This way people get push notification, and also a place to track what they've done and what they haven't.
I like this one.
So ok, let me propose this: With rebuilds, it's the library maintainer's job to find all dep packages. There are then two choices:
- build everything yourself, if you feel like it (yay!)
- make a todolist and post on the arch-dev-public ML so we know
that there is a new rebuild todolist.
Sounds good. Put the package list, with the following observations:
- if you decide to build everything yourself, think about that first and
want to take that responsibility; releasing is more than just rebuilding, and by rebuilding you potentially break something and thereby take on responsibility to fix it in relatively short order (even if it's just in testing)
- generally make sure the emailed todo list actually contains the list
of packages, or at minimum a direct link to the todo list; it gives people no excuse not to notice
I'm hesitant to suggest this, as I'm not able to actually make it happen, but could the addition of a package to a to-do list trigger the same automated-mail thing that is currently used for out-of-date flags? That would make option two a single task: make a to-do list.
T.
On Jan 4, 2008 4:22 PM, Tom K tom@archlinux.org wrote:
I'm hesitant to suggest this, as I'm not able to actually make it happen, but could the addition of a package to a to-do list trigger the same automated-mail thing that is currently used for out-of-date flags? That would make option two a single task: make a to-do list.
I was thinking the same - could you add this to the "Internal Dev" section so that we actually remember to do it?
Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008 4:22 PM, Tom K tom@archlinux.org wrote:
I'm hesitant to suggest this, as I'm not able to actually make it happen, but could the addition of a package to a to-do list trigger the same automated-mail thing that is currently used for out-of-date flags? That would make option two a single task: make a to-do list.
I was thinking the same - could you add this to the "Internal Dev" section so that we actually remember to do it?
Done - FS#9100
arch-dev-public@lists.archlinux.org