Server Migration: buildbot

[Dan Ports]

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:45:40AM +0200, Clemens Lang wrote:
> We are in control of that, so it's entirely our decision whether a
> revbump is our only way to ensure users rebuild.

I think the way I'd prefer to handle this would be to have the buildbot
produce a list of ports that need to be revbumped. At first, we might have
it just report the list; later, we could move to havign it actually
bump the revisions.

> I don't see how that takes more time than it did before – the rebuild
> was needed anyway and the buildbot would have done it anyway: Either
> because rev-upgrade detected broken linkage, or because somebody
> commited a revbump. Remember, there's no point in keeping a broken
> package around.

There might not be much point in keeping a broken package around, but I
think it's still valuable to have an identifier for each version. That
way, we know what version someone has installed, what version is
available on a mirror, that the signature file is for the same version
as the archive, etc.

We could come up with a separate build ID or something for this, but I
don't think that buys us anything over just using the revision.

Dan

-- 
Dan R. K. Ports                UW CSE                http://drkp.net/