From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Sep 10 21:22:06 2020 Received: (at 43075) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Sep 2020 01:22:06 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41779 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kGXlO-0008Vo-G1 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 21:22:06 -0400 Received: from mx1.riseup.net ([198.252.153.129]:35300) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kGXlN-0008Vh-GL for 43075@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 21:22:05 -0400 Received: from bell.riseup.net (bell-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.riseup.net", Issuer "Sectigo RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA" (not verified)) by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BndJr6VftzFgYr; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:22:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=riseup.net; s=squak; t=1599787324; bh=6YP+B3H3tpJzNWnVRaRAYyB3Er/MWPY2J735VHK0yEM=; h=Cc:Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=GVILXz32n3V5Qr9mK12w0VzvboipMsns6diUJOI725XUHXX94kf13lmcgKfEz8i9D ZnPbtUjVJpCWoQkEFmwhYeBzx5Y/Grm1rjFJDEWN9m1g/byEiT7mY2dXuSm8g9DFPB HBVQU5FWyWPVfQm9eiGBWQN1/WRLmUikEIj6qQRc= X-Riseup-User-ID: 8BD78891CB146F7F3F6675E159FF5F7B3D4EEADADADAEE36BD87B7D5639F9B27 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bell.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BndJr3csKzJqS4; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:22:04 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: bug#43075: Prioritize providing substitutes for security-critical packages with potentially long build times From: "Mason Hock" To: =?utf-8?q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:14:28 -0700 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <87bliejc3j.fsf@gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 43075 Cc: 43075@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) On Thu Sep 10, 2020 at 1:00 AM PDT, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > Hi, > > chaosmonk skribis: > > > ungoogled-chromium receives frequent security updates, so it is > > important for users to keep it up-to-date. However, binary > > substitutes for the latest version are usually not available, and it > > can take a very long time to build from source, possibly multiple > > days on low-end hardware. This might tempt or force some users to put > > off upgrading the package and run an older, vulnerable version until a > > binary substitute is available or they have a chance to set aside the > > uptime needed to build from source. > > > > I don't know what Guix's CI system looks like or how packages are > > queued for building, but if there is a way to prioritize builds for > > certain packages, I propose that substitutes for packages like > > ungoogled-chromium should be built as soon as possible once there is a > > new version. Other security-critical packages with potentially long > > build times that come to mind are icecat and linux-libre. > > Thanks for your feedback. Our build farm has often been lagging behind > lately and that=E2=80=99s something we=E2=80=99ve been working on. The > ungoogled-chromium package is even more problematic because it takes > more than ~80 CPU-hours to build, and that often times out with our > current build farm settings (where we don=E2=80=99t allow builds to take = more > than 6h, IIRC). Yes, Chromium's build time is obscene. However, not providing substitutes for it duplicates that problem to the machines of every Guix user who uses ungoogled-chromium. In the time that it would take Guix's build farm to build u-c it could probably build many other packages, but users are in the exact same situation, so a substitute for u-c is likely more valuable to them than substitutes for those other packages. If it is possible to override the 6h timeout value for individual packages, I think that it would be worth doing so for u-c, and perhaps for Icecat and Linux-libre as well. > Right now we=E2=80=99re trying to improve build throughput in general but= your > proposal makes sense, of course. > > Thanks, > Ludo=E2=80=99.