[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       debian-devel
Subject:    Re: order of builds on a buildd: icu (optional/libs)
From:       Adeodato =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sim=F3?= <asp16 () alu ! ua ! es>
Date:       2005-08-19 10:31:14
Message-ID: 20050819103114.GA10801 () chistera ! yi ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

* Steve Langasek [Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:46:19 -0700]:

> On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 07:40:30PM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:

> > Based on what I've seen in other threads, the order in which packages
> > get built on a buildd is a function of, among perhaps other factors,
> > its priority and section.  I uploaded icu several days ago and have
> > watched other packages (including my other uploads) sneak in front of
> > it that shouldn't have based on these two factors. 
> TTBOMK, new binary packages should not affect the ordering of the
> package in the build queue.  The sort criteria are, in order of
> precedence: the upload target; out-of-date vs. uncompiled; the source
> package priority; and the source package section.

  Both in hppa and in m68k, icu is listed in state "uncompiled", so that
  explains.

> > The only thing I can think of is that the latest
> > icu builds two binary packages that have not previously existed
> > because it is a library with a new soname.  Does that impact it?
  
  Well, this is quite an special case, since afaics the new version of
  the source package "icu" does not share a single binary with the old
  version. Perhaps that's gonna be it.

-- 
Adeodato Simó
    EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621
 
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately
explained by stupidity.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]