Task:PR1.2 autobuilder
javispedro (Talk | contribs) |
({{task|completed}}) |
||
(One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | {{task|completed}} | ||
+ | |||
== Background == | == Background == | ||
- | After the PR1.2 SDK was released, Niels deployed it to the | + | After the PR1.2 SDK was released, Niels deployed it to the autobuilder; enacting a plan which was discussed on this list. This has caused problems with libhildon dependencies, but the problems aren't just limited to that library [http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/maemo-developers/2010-March/025668.html]. |
- | autobuilder; enacting a plan which was discussed on this list. This | + | |
- | has caused problems with libhildon dependencies, but the problems | + | |
- | aren't just limited to that library [http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/maemo-developers/2010-March/025668.html]. | + | |
Both Niels and the Council believe we should do something to assist. | Both Niels and the Council believe we should do something to assist. | ||
Line 11: | Line 10: | ||
== What we should do == | == What we should do == | ||
- | We *need* to do something, both to improve the situation in -devel and | + | We *need* to do something, both to improve the situation in [[extras-devel]] and [[extras-testing]] today, and test an approach for the next upgrade. |
- | -testing today, and test an approach for the next upgrade. | + | |
The main requirements here are, I think: | The main requirements here are, I think: | ||
Line 26: | Line 24: | ||
== Progress == | == Progress == | ||
- | Fremantle autobuilder has been switched to the Squeeze devkit; idea [[#Use the improved dpkg-shlibdeps]] | + | Fremantle autobuilder has been switched to the Squeeze devkit; idea [[#Use the improved dpkg-shlibdeps]] has been implemented. [http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/maemo-developers/2010-April/025870.html] [http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/maemo-developers/2010-April/025905.html]. -- 21:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC) |
== Options == | == Options == | ||
Line 32: | Line 30: | ||
=== Deploy SDKs as they are released; treat -devel and -testing as trunk === | === Deploy SDKs as they are released; treat -devel and -testing as trunk === | ||
- | This is what we have now, I think we can say it doesn't work if | + | This is what we have now, I think we can say it doesn't work if there's going to be more than a few days between SDK release and device upgrade. Since Nokia doesn't pre-announce release dates, and last minute bugs could cause problems; I think we can rule this one out. |
- | there's going to be more than a few days between SDK release and | + | |
- | device upgrade. Since Nokia doesn't pre-announce release dates, and | + | |
- | last minute bugs could cause problems; I think we can rule this one | + | |
- | out. | + | |
=== Revert the builder === | === Revert the builder === | ||
- | This is basically a step backwards. "Changing the builder config is | + | This is basically a step backwards. "Changing the builder config is easy. Cleaning up -devel and rebuilding the affected packages is quite some work as we don't have any scripts for that made yet." |
- | easy. Cleaning up -devel and rebuilding the affected packages is quite | + | |
- | some work as we don't have any scripts for that made yet." | + | |
=== Hack the SDK, create some kind of hybrid === | === Hack the SDK, create some kind of hybrid === | ||
- | This'd be bad enough if limited to just libhildon, but isn't viable | + | This'd be bad enough if limited to just libhildon, but isn't viable and WILL cause unforeseen problems. Veto :-) |
- | and WILL cause unforeseen problems. Veto :-) | + | |
=== Create separate repos, build queues for pre- and post-1.2 === | === Create separate repos, build queues for pre- and post-1.2 === | ||
- | Similar to what's been done for Extras proper. "Creating the repos | + | Similar to what's been done for Extras proper. "Creating the repos will be about a day work, but the part that sits on top of that (management scripts, Packages interface, QA queue) will probably take a week of work." |
- | will be about a day work, but the part that sits on top of that | + | |
- | (management scripts, Packages interface, QA queue) will probably take | + | |
- | a week of work." | + | |
There are hard issues around QA here. | There are hard issues around QA here. | ||
Line 60: | Line 48: | ||
=== Try building in each SDK in turn === | === Try building in each SDK in turn === | ||
- | My suggestion; when someone uploads to "fremantle" auto-builder it | + | My suggestion; when someone uploads to "fremantle" auto-builder it attempts to build the package against the PR1.1 SDK. If it succeeds, it goes into Extras-devel. If it fails to build, it gets built with the PR1.2 SDK, and so on. |
- | attempts to build the package against the PR1.1 SDK. If it succeeds, | + | |
- | it goes into Extras-devel. If it fails to build, it gets built with | + | |
- | the PR1.2 SDK, and so on. | + | |
- | For an app with compile time symbol resolution (e.g. C/C++), this'd | + | For an app with compile time symbol resolution (e.g. C/C++), this'd handle both cases quite nicely. Python apps would have to depend on the specific versions of bindings which gave them the features they wanted - again, not too much of a problem. |
- | handle both cases quite nicely. Python apps would have to depend on | + | |
- | the specific versions of bindings which gave them the features they | + | |
- | wanted - again, not too much of a problem. | + | |
- | At extras(-stable) promotion time you could even decide, based on | + | At extras(-stable) promotion time you could even decide, based on actual binary package dependencies, whether to put in fremantle-1.2 or both fremantle-1.2 & fremantle extras repos. This would fix another common complain, "what if I don't upgrade for a few weeks". |
- | actual binary package dependencies, whether to put in fremantle-1.2 or | + | |
- | both fremantle-1.2 & fremantle extras repos. This would fix another | + | |
- | common complain, "what if I don't upgrade for a few weeks". | + | |
- | Larger packages could be prevent from being tried to built twice by | + | Larger packages could be prevent from being tried to built twice by stating a forced build dependency on a PR1.2 version of any system package. |
- | stating a forced build dependency on a PR1.2 version of any system | + | |
- | package. | + | |
- | Some software won't install from -devel and -testing as it does now, | + | Some software won't install from -devel and -testing as it does now, but that will be reduced to the set of software which is actually using features that are unavailable. A HAM patch could grey out applications which were uninstallable, or show some other indication. |
- | but that will be reduced to the set of software which is actually | + | |
- | using features that are unavailable. A HAM patch could grey out | + | |
- | applications which were uninstallable, or show some other indication. | + | |
This is, effectively, reinventing the more intelligent [http://wiki.debian.org/Projects/ImprovedDpkgShlibdeps dpkg-shlibdeps]. | This is, effectively, reinventing the more intelligent [http://wiki.debian.org/Projects/ImprovedDpkgShlibdeps dpkg-shlibdeps]. |
Latest revision as of 08:37, 11 May 2010
This task is completed and this page stays here for documentation purposes only. Please file bugs or propose a new, related task if you want to push this forward. Please see the talk page for discussion. |
Contents
|
[edit] Background
After the PR1.2 SDK was released, Niels deployed it to the autobuilder; enacting a plan which was discussed on this list. This has caused problems with libhildon dependencies, but the problems aren't just limited to that library [1].
Both Niels and the Council believe we should do something to assist.
[edit] What we should do
We *need* to do something, both to improve the situation in extras-devel and extras-testing today, and test an approach for the next upgrade.
The main requirements here are, I think:
- It's not an excessive amount of work
- It's a viable long term strategy
- The QA process doesn't get broken
Thoughts and comments from developers, or anyone else with a idea, will be much appreciated.
[edit] Progress
Fremantle autobuilder has been switched to the Squeeze devkit; idea #Use the improved dpkg-shlibdeps has been implemented. [2] [3]. -- 21:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Options
[edit] Deploy SDKs as they are released; treat -devel and -testing as trunk
This is what we have now, I think we can say it doesn't work if there's going to be more than a few days between SDK release and device upgrade. Since Nokia doesn't pre-announce release dates, and last minute bugs could cause problems; I think we can rule this one out.
[edit] Revert the builder
This is basically a step backwards. "Changing the builder config is easy. Cleaning up -devel and rebuilding the affected packages is quite some work as we don't have any scripts for that made yet."
[edit] Hack the SDK, create some kind of hybrid
This'd be bad enough if limited to just libhildon, but isn't viable and WILL cause unforeseen problems. Veto :-)
[edit] Create separate repos, build queues for pre- and post-1.2
Similar to what's been done for Extras proper. "Creating the repos will be about a day work, but the part that sits on top of that (management scripts, Packages interface, QA queue) will probably take a week of work."
There are hard issues around QA here.
[edit] Try building in each SDK in turn
My suggestion; when someone uploads to "fremantle" auto-builder it attempts to build the package against the PR1.1 SDK. If it succeeds, it goes into Extras-devel. If it fails to build, it gets built with the PR1.2 SDK, and so on.
For an app with compile time symbol resolution (e.g. C/C++), this'd handle both cases quite nicely. Python apps would have to depend on the specific versions of bindings which gave them the features they wanted - again, not too much of a problem.
At extras(-stable) promotion time you could even decide, based on actual binary package dependencies, whether to put in fremantle-1.2 or both fremantle-1.2 & fremantle extras repos. This would fix another common complain, "what if I don't upgrade for a few weeks".
Larger packages could be prevent from being tried to built twice by stating a forced build dependency on a PR1.2 version of any system package.
Some software won't install from -devel and -testing as it does now, but that will be reduced to the set of software which is actually using features that are unavailable. A HAM patch could grey out applications which were uninstallable, or show some other indication.
This is, effectively, reinventing the more intelligent dpkg-shlibdeps.
However, it deals with the following three circumstances:
- Application uses API which has changed in later SDK. This will be built with PR1.1 SDK, succeeds and goes into Extras-devel. Can be promoted to Extras-testing but there's no clear way for a tester to know it won't work if their device is running the latest OS.
- Application uses API which is unchanged in later SDK. This will be built with PR1.1 SDK, succeeds and goes into Extras-devel. Can be promoted to Extras-testing and tested on any device with PR1.1 or PR1.2. Once promoted it COULD go into fremantle and fremantle-1.2.
- Application uses API which is introduced in later SDK. This will be built with PR1.1 SDK and fail. It will be rebuilt with PR1.2 SDK, succeed and go into Extras-devel. Can be promoted to Extras-testing and tested by testers using the most recent release. Once promoted it will go into fremantle-1.2.
[edit] Use the improved dpkg-shlibdeps
This is a big topic and as such might require more careful consideration, but seems way more future proof than the rest of options.
Stuff that would need to be done:
- Add the debian-squeeze devkit to the autobuilder. At this point I don't know if it's usable, or not. The Lenny devkit does not contain dpkg-shlibdeps.
- Ensure required .symbols files are in the SDK. We could either
- Fix upstream. Make them generate .symbols files, make them use the updated devkit. Probably impossible for PR1.2.
- Ship symbol files ourselves in an external package. A bit ugly, requires maintenance.
- Put the built packages into a common -devel repo, or specific -devel-1.0 and -devel-1.2 repositories?
- If single -devel & -testing repositories, decide whether to put packages in -1.0 or -1.2 at -stable promotion time.
Some cons:
- Just enabling debian-squeeze devkit in autobuilder might cause problems. Need to check on that. Might need testing.
- Need to ensure that local SDK installations can replicate the autobuilder setup. This means debian-squeeze devkit, and .symbols files have to be distributed.
A nice added benefit is that we get updated debhelper in the SDK, and more Debian compatibility; might be worth to push.
[edit] Initial testing
There will be a temporary autobuilder with the debian-squeeze devkit installed where we will experiment with .symbols files. We have thrown a few packages to it with no visible problems so far; if someone thinks his package might break when built under a newer Debian tooling please say so before it breaks.
.symbols file generation is currently being done externally, using the publicly released library binaries and dpkg-gensymbols. A sample PR1.2 libhildon1 .symbols file looks like this, and will be placed in /etc/dpkg/symbols/ .
[edit] Case-by-case basis
Developer complains: add a temporary exception to autobuilder to build $APPNAME with PR1.0/1.1 SDK, but goes into the shared extras-devel as now.
- This page was last modified on 11 May 2010, at 08:37.
- This page has been accessed 10,924 times.