Launchpad itself

Restrict architectures on a per-PPA basis

Bug #471148 reported by Steve Magoun
34
This bug affects 2 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
Launchpad itself
Fix Released
High
Jelmer Vernooij

Bug Description

OEM needs to build armel packages in a P3A. I understand that we don't have a general armel PPA solution available yet, so Soyuz needs to be able to provide armel support on a per-PPA basis.

Related branches

lp:~jelmer/launchpad/bug471148
Björn Tillenius (community): Approve (db)
Stuart Bishop (community): Approve (db)
Paul Hummer (community): Approve (code)
Diff: 711 lines (+423/-18)
18 files modified
database/sampledata/current-dev.sql (+5/-4)
database/sampledata/current.sql (+5/-4)
database/schema/patch-2207-35-0.sql (+8/-0)
database/schema/security.cfg (+2/-2)
lib/lp/soyuz/browser/archive.py (+1/-1)
lib/lp/soyuz/configure.zcml (+2/-1)
lib/lp/soyuz/interfaces/archive.py (+3/-0)
lib/lp/soyuz/interfaces/archivearch.py (+11/-0)
lib/lp/soyuz/interfaces/processor.py (+24/-1)
lib/lp/soyuz/model/archive.py (+35/-0)
lib/lp/soyuz/model/archivearch.py (+16/-0)
lib/lp/soyuz/model/processor.py (+12/-0)
lib/lp/soyuz/model/publishing.py (+25/-5)
lib/lp/soyuz/tests/test_archive.py (+53/-0)
lib/lp/soyuz/tests/test_archivearch.py (+57/-0)
lib/lp/soyuz/tests/test_processor.py (+32/-0)
lib/lp/soyuz/tests/test_publishing.py (+99/-0)
lib/lp/testing/factory.py (+33/-0)
Steve Magoun (smagoun)
tags: added: oem-services
Julian Edwards (julian-edwards)
Changed in soyuz:
status: New → Triaged
importance: Undecided → High
Revision history for this message
Christian Reis (kiko) wrote :

Can't an admin already set a PPA as buildable on any architecture, overriding the restricted set available to the general public?

Revision history for this message
Julian Edwards (julian-edwards) wrote :

The only option admins have is to say whether the PPA is virtualised or not. In effect, this is letting a PPA use the distro's builders which offer the full set of arches. Steve, didn't you say that you could not use the distro (non-virtual) builders? If it *is* acceptable to IS then this is a trivial solution.

Steve Magoun (smagoun)
visibility: public → private
Julian Edwards (julian-edwards)
Changed in soyuz:
assignee: nobody → Jelmer Vernooij (jelmer)
Revision history for this message
Julian Edwards (julian-edwards) wrote :

Here's the implementation plan, as agreed with Jono:

1. Add a bool column "restricted" to ProcessorFamily, which will be "true" for "arm". This will tell SourcePackagePublishingHistory.createMissingBuilds() that it should not create builds for restricted architectures.
2. The existing table ArchiveArch associates archives and processorfamilies. If a row exists for a certain archive and arm architecture, then createMissingBuilds() will treat it as an override and ignore the "restricted" flag.
3. Amend the ppa +admin form to allow an admin to specify which restricted ProcessorFamilies the PPA is allowed to use (which will be saved in the ArchiveArch table)

createMissingBuilds() calls determineArchitecturesToBuild() in the buildmaster module. It already uses P-A-S to override the architectures selected - it can do something similar with ArchiveArch as well.

Revision history for this message
Diogo Matsubara (matsubara) wrote : Bug fixed by a commit

Fixed in db r9051 <http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~launchpad-pqm/launchpad/db-devel/revision/9051>

Changed in soyuz:
status: Triaged → Fix Committed
Jelmer Vernooij (jelmer)
Changed in soyuz:
status: Fix Committed → Fix Released
Curtis Hovey (sinzui)
visibility: private → public
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.
Subscribing...

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.