Обсуждение: How is the repo tree maintained?
Hi all When a package gets built, how do the resulting packages then get pushed to the actual package tree? Is it manually rsync'ing / scp'ing them over? I'm wondering because I keep on finding RPMs in the wrong version's tree, or odd mixtures where some RPMs are present for one arch and not another, etc. I also just noticed that the CentOS 6 SRPM for 9.0.18 is in the srpm tree, but svn is for the same package is still at 9.0.17. I'll make a note of these as I find them in future, but this is about the process of how it's done. I'm trying to figure out how this happens and if any changes could make it easier to get consistent results. -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Hi, On Wed, 2014-09-03 at 15:18 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > > When a package gets built, how do the resulting packages then get > pushed to the actual package tree? > > Is it manually rsync'ing / scp'ing them over? After the packages are built, we first create a repo on the local machine, and then sync that repo to the master server. Until early this year, we had 2 staging repos, but we got rid of that. This is well scripted process actually. > I'm wondering because I keep on finding RPMs in the wrong version's > tree, or odd mixtures where some RPMs are present for one arch and not > another, etc. That would surprise me. Example, please? > I also just noticed that the CentOS 6 SRPM for 9.0.18 is in the srpm > tree, but svn is for the same package is still at 9.0.17. It may mean that we could build the SRPM (which is the 1st phase of the RPM build process), but the rest failed. -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer Twitter: @DevrimGunduz , @DevrimGunduzTR
Вложения
On 09/03/2014 03:28 PM, Devrim Gündüz wrote: >> > I'm wondering because I keep on finding RPMs in the wrong version's >> > tree, or odd mixtures where some RPMs are present for one arch and not >> > another, etc. > That would surprise me. Example, please? The specific case I was thinking of turned out to be where the i386 repo for rhel5 contained postgresql91-9.1.13 and postgresql91-9.1.14, but the x86_64 repo contained postgresql91-9.1.13 only. Presumably that was a case where only one arch got built. Another case is this: http://yum.postgresql.org/9.0/fedora/fedora-16-x86_64/ where postgresql91-jdbc-9.1.901-1.f16.noarch.rpm has snuck into the 9.0 tree. It's reasonable to argue that the latest PgJDBC should be packaged, irrespective of the PostgreSQL version, so this might be on purpose. It's surprising, though. It's quite possible I'm imagining things / misremembering, as I can't find the other cases I thought I remembered. -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
> On Sep 3, 2014, at 0:56, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > The specific case I was thinking of turned out to be where the i386 repo > for rhel5 contained postgresql91-9.1.13 and postgresql91-9.1.14, but the > x86_64 repo contained postgresql91-9.1.13 only. > > Presumably that was a case where only one arch got built. It was built but did not get uploaded because the repo xml file was missing. Pretty sure I updated the list when I foundthat.