Hi!

my mini-buildd is configured to have architectures amd64, i386 and
armhf. The armhf arch was just recently added so that I could poke
locally built packages into the repository using direct reprepro calls
and to be prepared to have mini-buildd actually build armhf packages.

I do not yet have an armhf builder since my only armhf system is
running jessie and does not have enough storage to support a sid
chroot, and I would like to spare myself from backporting mini-buildd
to jessie.

When mini-buildd builds a package now, the build fails because there
is no armhf builder. With one build failing like that, the packages
resulting from the successful builds on i386 and amd64 are not
uploaded to the archive.

I tried my package now with Architecture: amd64 in all binary
packages, which correctly resulted in "Architecture: amd64" in the
.dsc file. The _source.changes file that got uploaded to mini-buildd
had Architecture: source.

Despite this, mini-buildd attempted to build the package for i386
(successful) and armhf (failed, no builder available), and didn't
upload the amd64 package to the archive.

I think that mini-buildd should honor the Architecture: field in
uploaded packages and refrain from trying to build on arches that the
packager doesn't want.

Setting armhf to "optional" in the repository settings is a remedy for
the issue, but I still feel that the ultimate responsibility should be
with the packager.

Greetings
Marc

Moin,

On Sa, 2015-07-25 at 15:28 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:

(...)

ftra, I am always doing ports for jessie (via Debian Backports) or even
wheezy (via my own repo).
(...)
(...)
(...)

hmm ok, for that special setup (having no builder at all for a required
arch), it would be a nice to have.

Fwiw, currently, mini-buildd just uploads build requests to all builders
and completely relies on sbuild. This *is* a nice solution, as sbuild
knows best, and no extra/duplicated code/dsc knowledge at all is needed
in mini-buildd.

As this case is already covered by confing the arch as "optional", can
we put that to "wishlist" and rename it to "please don't upload build
requests to archs that don't need build"?

Should help me when returning to it ;). I guess it depends how simple it
is to implement whether I am considering this...

Thx!

S

severity #793606 wishlist
retitle #793606 please don't upload build requests to archs that don't need build
thanks

Hi Stephan,

So it is sbuild that does not honor the Architecture field?

Done, thanks!

Greetings
Marc

On So, 2015-07-26 at 11:22 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
(...)

No, sbuild would run fine and result with status "skipped" (which is a
successful build).

In your setup mini-buildd does not find any builder for the your arch
(to eventually run sbuild on) in the first place.

Htei,

S

Well, it shouldn't do that. It is clear from the meta information in
the .dsc that the package is not for armhf.

I'm fine with this being a wishlist item though.

Greetings
Marc