Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Avoid building crates with official pre-built artifacts? #197

Open
NobodyXu opened this issue Mar 13, 2023 · 4 comments
Open

Avoid building crates with official pre-built artifacts? #197

NobodyXu opened this issue Mar 13, 2023 · 4 comments
Labels

Comments

@NobodyXu
Copy link
Member

NobodyXu commented Mar 13, 2023

I wonder if we should stop building crates with official pre-build artifacts.
We could use cargo binstall --dry-run --strategies crate-meta-data "$crate" --targets "$TARGET_ARCH" to find out if such artifacts are present.

@NobodyXu
Copy link
Member Author

@alsuren What do you think about this?

@alsuren
Copy link
Collaborator

alsuren commented Mar 13, 2023 via email

@NobodyXu
Copy link
Member Author

I remember making quickinstall tell binstall not to look for upstream
builds, because it was too slow. This means that quickinstall will still
need us to build those packages.

This is improved with v0.21.x release, which uses GitHub Restful API to speedup resolution and avoid creating a lot of http requests to GitHub that slows it down and gets it rate limited.

Even if we managed to make it faster, we would need to wait for the
existing clients to die before disabling builds. I guess we could find that
out from the stats server, but binstall doesn't report which version of
quickinstall is driving it, so it might be guesswork.

Hmm yeah, that's indeed a problem.

In the grand scheme of things, we will always burn a bunch of compute time
building crates that nobody installs. I think we still break even overall
though (we could check by summing up the installs from the stats server and
comparing it against the how many crates we build in the same period).

True.

@NobodyXu
Copy link
Member Author

Let's put this issue to hold for now.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants