Re: Two new architectures bootstrapping in unstable - MBF coming soon
2014-08-28 01:55 Wookey: +++ Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo [2014-08-27 20:25 +0100]: Congrats! The sooner that you graduate out of debian-ports, the better for other architectures that want to get into ;-) -- although arm64 is still there, for some reasons. We are using the binaries in debian-ports to help bootstrap debian proper (cycle breaking), so will keep debian-ports running until everything there is also built in debian-proper, then we can turn it off, and as you observe, 'free up' a slot. That should be within the month judging by current rates of progress. Ah, OK, thanks for the explanation. I thought that it was just a pending task that was not carried out for some reason, or not reflected yet in the website. The part of freeing up a slot was meant as a joke though, no hurry :-) I am very happy to see these new arches progress so quickly! Cheers. -- Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo manuel.montez...@gmail.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140828231949.ga2...@lugh.itsari.org
Re: Two new architectures bootstrapping in unstable - MBF coming soon
2014-08-27 02:46 Wookey: Hi folks, We are excited to announce that in the last two weeks two new architectures have been added to the archive: arm64 and ppc64el. [...] A lot of people are working hard to get them to a releasable state in time for Jessie. Congrats! The sooner that you graduate out of debian-ports, the better for other architectures that want to get into ;-) -- although arm64 is still there, for some reasons. There were efforts a while ago to try to get mips64el into the club of officially supported architectures also for Jessie, or at least in debian-ports. I'm curious about what happened with that, does anybody know? Cheers. -- Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo manuel.montez...@gmail.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140827192545.ga1...@lugh.itsari.org
Re: Two new architectures bootstrapping in unstable - MBF coming soon
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 08:25:45PM +0100, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: 2014-08-27 02:46 Wookey: Hi folks, We are excited to announce that in the last two weeks two new architectures have been added to the archive: arm64 and ppc64el. [...] A lot of people are working hard to get them to a releasable state in time for Jessie. Congrats! The sooner that you graduate out of debian-ports, the better for other architectures that want to get into ;-) -- although arm64 is still there, for some reasons. There were efforts a while ago to try to get mips64el into the club of officially supported architectures also for Jessie, or at least in debian-ports. I'm curious about what happened with that, does anybody know? We are waiting for new buildds to be ready, after that we can start off the work of mips64el, :) -- Regards, Aron Xu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140827200103.GA26203@aron-laptop
Re: Two new architectures bootstrapping in unstable - MBF coming soon
+++ Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo [2014-08-27 20:25 +0100]: Congrats! The sooner that you graduate out of debian-ports, the better for other architectures that want to get into ;-) -- although arm64 is still there, for some reasons. We are using the binaries in debian-ports to help bootstrap debian proper (cycle breaking), so will keep debian-ports running until everything there is also built in debian-proper, then we can turn it off, and as you observe, 'free up' a slot. That should be within the month judging by current rates of progress. Wookey -- Principal hats: Linaro, Emdebian, Wookware, Balloonboard, ARM http://wookware.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140828005517.go19...@stoneboat.aleph1.co.uk
Re: New architectures
Joerg Jaspert jo...@ganneff.de disait : we just added two new architectures to the Debian archive. Everybody please welcome kfreebsd-i386 AKA GNU/kFreeBSD i386 kfreebsd-amd64 AKA GNU/kFreeBSD amd64 Hi Joerg, What should be done with amd64-libs and ia32-libs now? Can we add those archs to it as they are? MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New architectures
OoO Vers la fin de l'après-midi du dimanche 05 avril 2009, vers 16:23, Joerg Jaspert jo...@ganneff.de disait : we just added two new architectures to the Debian archive. Everybody please welcome kfreebsd-i386 AKA GNU/kFreeBSD i386 kfreebsd-amd64 AKA GNU/kFreeBSD amd64 Note that this enables porter NMUs for those two. In case you have a bug with a patch waiting for your package that has to do with one of them, please either fix it soon or expect a porter NMU to be done soon. The two new architectures (well, better named OS i think, as they use a different kernel) are available in unstable and experimental. We do start out empty, importing only what is needed to get a buildd running. For this reason you will not be able to directly use it immediately. Please wait until they catched up, which I expect to happen soon. Hi Joerg! How packages that run on Linux only should handle those new architectures? -- # Basic IBM dingbats, some of which will never have a purpose clear # to mankind 2.4.0 linux/drivers/char/cp437.uni pgpZdExSTLIgE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: New architectures
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Vincent Bernat ber...@debian.org wrote: How packages that run on Linux only should handle those new architectures? Same as for stuff that only runs on i386; port them to kFreeBSD or restrict them to linux architectures and add them to P-a-s. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New architectures
On 11711 March 1977, Vincent Bernat wrote: How packages that run on Linux only should handle those new architectures? The same as with any other portability problem. Either fix it, or if it really doesn't work out mark it as such. P-a-s is one way for it. -- bye, Joerg GyrosGeier I've annoyed Ganneff enough with that package already, no reason to top it off by a build-depend on emacs for writing control files -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New architectures
OoO Lors de la soirée naissante du dimanche 05 avril 2009, vers 17:53, Paul Wise p...@debian.org disait : How packages that run on Linux only should handle those new architectures? Same as for stuff that only runs on i386; port them to kFreeBSD or restrict them to linux architectures and add them to P-a-s. Hum, what's P-a-s? pgpavALVk5BJn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: New architectures
Vincent Bernat wrote: OoO Lors de la soirée naissante du dimanche 05 avril 2009, vers 17:53, Paul Wise p...@debian.org disait : How packages that run on Linux only should handle those new architectures? Same as for stuff that only runs on i386; port them to kFreeBSD or restrict them to linux architectures and add them to P-a-s. Hum, what's P-a-s? Packages-arch-specific: it's a list of packages that will for a *long* time not be supported on all architectures. File a bug against buildd.debian.org if you think an entry should be added for your package. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Buildds still not picking up new architectures, why?
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 11:08:10AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 04:38:20PM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote:
So there is ONE w-b for {i386,ppc,...) and there is one buildd for each
arch that connects to that ONE w-b?
No. There is one system where wanna-build databases are stored. That
single one wanna-build system has, of course, multiple databases, but
there's only one version of wanna-build (the distinction is made with a
command-line parameter in the form of -b arch/build-db
There are a number of buildd machines for each arch that connect to that
one w-b machine and call it correctly, based on their local
configuration and other things. The number of buildd machines is not
limited, certainly not to just one (in fact, requirements for etch
include having more than one buildd).
Hi Wouter,
thanks for the clarification, I will add it to my diagram. Saw you on
opensource21.nl after downloading your video from democracyplayer.
cheers,
Kev
--
| .''`. == Debian GNU/Linux == | my web site: |
| : :' : The Universal | debian.home.pipeline.com |
| `. `' Operating System| go to counter.li.org and |
| `-http://www.debian.org/ |be counted! #238656 |
| my keysever: pgp.mit.edu | my NPO: cfsg.org |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Buildds still not picking up new architectures, why?
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 04:38:20PM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote:
So there is ONE w-b for {i386,ppc,...) and there is one buildd for each
arch that connects to that ONE w-b?
No. There is one system where wanna-build databases are stored. That
single one wanna-build system has, of course, multiple databases, but
there's only one version of wanna-build (the distinction is made with a
command-line parameter in the form of -b arch/build-db
There are a number of buildd machines for each arch that connect to that
one w-b machine and call it correctly, based on their local
configuration and other things. The number of buildd machines is not
limited, certainly not to just one (in fact, requirements for etch
include having more than one buildd).
--
Fun will now commence
-- Seven Of Nine, Ashes to Ashes, stardate 53679.4
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Buildds still not picking up new architectures, why?
Hi Kevin,
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 04:38:20PM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote:
Hi Aurélien G, (sorry for the bad conversion by mutt)
No problem, I am still not an UTF-8 guy, so my local ISO-8859-15
encoding is the culprit for you. ;)
So there is ONE w-b for {i386,ppc,...) and there is one buildd for each
arch that connects to that ONE w-b?
Exactly, but several buildds for each architecture which take the
packages with the status 'Needs-Build' from wanna-build.
Cheers,
--
.''`. Aurélien GÉRÔME
: :' :
`. `'` Free Software Developer
`- Unix Sys Net Admin
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Buildds still not picking up new architectures, why?
Hi, On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 12:17:52PM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote: it is my understanding that each arch has its own wanna-build that uses its own copy of a p-a-s file. So, that would mean that there would have to be more than one copy updated. If this is not the case, then could some enlightened soul illuminate the facts. Is it also true that that there is a ftpmaster copy of p-a-s that overrides a porter copy? It is not the case, w-b is a centralised system which has only one copy of P-a-s for all architectures. Cheers, -- .''`. Aurélien GÉRÔME : :' : `. `'` Free Software Developer `- Unix Sys Net Admin signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Buildds still not picking up new architectures, why?
Hi, On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 03:01:41PM +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote: Someone else (lamont) did the changes I requested on p-a-s; now the only remaining problem is that the buildds are not taking the new version of p-a-s into account, because they can't talk to the CVS pserver. It seems it is not the case anymore. The following works from me now: cvs -z3 -d:pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvs/dak co dak Therefore, I assume w-b can do the same. Cheers, -- .''`. Aurélien GÉRÔME : :' : `. `'` Free Software Developer `- Unix Sys Net Admin signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Buildds still not picking up new architectures, why?
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 02:41:49PM +0200, Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 12:17:52PM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote:
it is my understanding that each arch has its own wanna-build that uses
its own copy of a p-a-s file. So, that would mean that there would have
to be more than one copy updated. If this is not the case, then could
some enlightened soul illuminate the facts. Is it also true that that
there is a ftpmaster copy of p-a-s that overrides a porter copy?
It is not the case, w-b is a centralised system which has only one
copy of P-a-s for all architectures.
Cheers,
Hi Aurélien G, (sorry for the bad conversion by mutt)
So there is ONE w-b for {i386,ppc,...) and there is one buildd for each
arch that connects to that ONE w-b?
TIA,
Kev
--
| .''`. == Debian GNU/Linux == | my web site: |
| : :' : The Universal | debian.home.pipeline.com |
| `. `' Operating System| go to counter.li.org and |
| `-http://www.debian.org/ |be counted! #238656 |
| my keysever: pgp.mit.edu | my NPO: cfsg.org |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Buildds still not picking up new architectures, why?
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 12:17:52PM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote: Someone else (lamont) did the changes I requested on p-a-s; now the only remaining problem is that the buildds are not taking the new version of p-a-s into account, because they can't talk to the CVS pserver. it is my understanding that each arch has its own wanna-build that uses its own copy of a p-a-s file. No. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Buildds still not picking up new architectures, why?
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Steve Langasek wrote: $ telnet cvs.debian.org cvspserver Trying 192.25.206.10... telnet: connect to address 192.25.206.10: Connection refused telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused $ Without pserver running, wanna-build can't get its updates from CVS. Ryan Murray (w-b admin, DSA) is aware of the problem. I see that 1.5 week later, the pserver is still not responding. Is Ryan on vacation? If so, can anyone else fix the problem for him? This issue has been blocking the Ada transition (19 source packages, 11 RC bugs) for about 3 weeks now, and I'd really like to be able to proceed. If Ryan is the only person who can fix this, then Debian has a problem; it would be nice to put a w-b admin *team* in place, for redundancy and no single point of failure. -- Ludovic Brenta. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Buildds still not picking up new architectures, why?
Hi, On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 10:47:13AM +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote: Ryan Murray (w-b admin, DSA) is aware of the problem. I see that 1.5 week later, the pserver is still not responding. Is Ryan on vacation? If so, can anyone else fix the problem for him? This issue has been blocking the Ada transition (19 source packages, 11 RC bugs) for about 3 weeks now, and I'd really like to be able to proceed. Couldn't you get the problematic outdated packages (I assume this is the case if you're talking about [testing?] transitions) removed temporarily? If Ryan is the only person who can fix this, then Debian has a problem; I assume the Debian administration team is responsible for this task, but as Ryan is also a w-b and p-a-s admin, it sounds reasonable to expect he will tend to it. it would be nice to put a w-b admin *team* in place, for redundancy and no single point of failure. I don't think we should talk of `failure' really, at most this is a hold-up. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Buildds still not picking up new architectures, why?
Michael Banck writes: Couldn't you get the problematic outdated packages (I assume this is the case if you're talking about [testing?] transitions) removed temporarily? No, that would not solve the problem. The problem, as the subject line says, is that the buildds are not building my packages on all architectures. I need to see the build logs on all archs before I'm satisfied that my packages are in good shape. The Ada transition does not require the removal of any package. If Ryan is the only person who can fix this, then Debian has a problem; I assume the Debian administration team is responsible for this task, but as Ryan is also a w-b and p-a-s admin, it sounds reasonable to expect he will tend to it. Someone else (lamont) did the changes I requested on p-a-s; now the only remaining problem is that the buildds are not taking the new version of p-a-s into account, because they can't talk to the CVS pserver. it would be nice to put a w-b admin *team* in place, for redundancy and no single point of failure. I don't think we should talk of `failure' really, at most this is a hold-up. Ah :) Well so far I have failed in executing my planned Ada transition, because of this hold-up :) But it is not too late to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat :) -- Ludovic Brenta. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Buildds still not picking up new architectures, why?
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 03:01:41PM +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote: Michael Banck writes: Couldn't you get the problematic outdated packages (I assume this is the case if you're talking about [testing?] transitions) removed temporarily? No, that would not solve the problem. The problem, as the subject line says, is that the buildds are not building my packages on all architectures. I need to see the build logs on all archs before I'm satisfied that my packages are in good shape. The Ada transition does not require the removal of any package. If Ryan is the only person who can fix this, then Debian has a problem; I assume the Debian administration team is responsible for this task, but as Ryan is also a w-b and p-a-s admin, it sounds reasonable to expect he will tend to it. Someone else (lamont) did the changes I requested on p-a-s; now the only remaining problem is that the buildds are not taking the new version of p-a-s into account, because they can't talk to the CVS pserver. Hi Ludovic Brenta. it is my understanding that each arch has its own wanna-build that uses its own copy of a p-a-s file. So, that would mean that there would have to be more than one copy updated. If this is not the case, then could some enlightened soul illuminate the facts. Is it also true that that there is a ftpmaster copy of p-a-s that overrides a porter copy? cheers, Kev -- | .''`. == Debian GNU/Linux == | my web site: | | : :' : The Universal | debian.home.pipeline.com | | `. `' Operating System| go to counter.li.org and | | `-http://www.debian.org/ |be counted! #238656 | | my keysever: pgp.mit.edu | my NPO: cfsg.org | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Buildds still not picking up new architectures, why?
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 10:47:13AM +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote: This issue has been blocking the Ada transition (19 source packages, 11 RC bugs) for about 3 weeks now, and I'd really like to be able to proceed. I don't see how this can be blocking a transition. Please just do it for the arches that are supported now. The buildd admins/porters can perfectly take care of it once P-a-s gets updated. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Buildds still not picking up new architectures, why?
Kurt Roeckx writes: On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 10:47:13AM +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote: This issue has been blocking the Ada transition (19 source packages, 11 RC bugs) for about 3 weeks now, and I'd really like to be able to proceed. I don't see how this can be blocking a transition. Please just do it for the arches that are supported now. The buildd admins/porters can perfectly take care of it once P-a-s gets updated. There are several reasons why this problem is blocking. One reason is that, as I explained in another post, I need to check the build logs on all architectures before I'm satisfied with my packages. Another is that many packages build-depend on each other, leading to a potential mess of build failures if a required package is missing when I try to build the next. A third reason is that the lack of builds on all archs will probably prevent the packages from migrating to testing. I really want all my packages to migrate to testing, so I am sure they will be in etch, before I consider re-uploading to fix minor problems or improve the packaging. But it's not you I need to convince, it is Ryan or whoever admins the CVS pserver where P-a-s is. I am also curious, like Kevin Mark, to understand the buildd infrastructure better. -- Ludovic Brenta. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Buildds still not picking up new architectures, why?
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 09:18:06PM +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote: Kurt Roeckx writes: But it's not you I need to convince, it is Ryan or whoever admins the CVS pserver where P-a-s is. I am also curious, like Kevin Mark, to understand the buildd infrastructure better. -- Hi Ludovic, my inquiries are to improve the acuracy of my mini-project at http://debian.home.pipeline.com/newdebian2.png or goto http://debian.home.pipeline.com/ for the full list. cheers, Kev -- | .''`. == Debian GNU/Linux == | my web site: | | : :' : The Universal | debian.home.pipeline.com | | `. `' Operating System| go to counter.li.org and | | `-http://www.debian.org/ |be counted! #238656 | | my keysever: pgp.mit.edu | my NPO: cfsg.org | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Buildds still not picking up new architectures, why?
I have requested an update to Packages-arch-specific for asis and other packages, so that the buildds would try to build these packages on newly supported architectures. LaMont Jones made the requested changes on 2006-07-23 [1]. Yesterday (2006-07-26), I uploaded asis again (2005-4), hoping to have it built on all supported archs. But the buildds, again, only attempted builds on powerpc and sparc, ant not on the newly supported ones [2]. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/07/msg00856.html [2] http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?pkg=asis What is happening? This is blocking the transition of Ada packages. Please respond directly to me as well as on the list. -- Ludovic Brenta. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Buildds still not picking up new architectures, why?
Hi Ludovic, On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 12:45:11PM +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote: I have requested an update to Packages-arch-specific for asis and other packages, so that the buildds would try to build these packages on newly supported architectures. LaMont Jones made the requested changes on 2006-07-23 [1]. Yesterday (2006-07-26), I uploaded asis again (2005-4), hoping to have it built on all supported archs. But the buildds, again, only attempted builds on powerpc and sparc, ant not on the newly supported ones [2]. So do I with iroffer. Hell, I was going to do another upload of it to finally get it on ia64 and s390. However, what you say prevents me to do so for now. Lamont told me wanna-build gets an updated P-a-s from the CVS in less than 24 hours, probably by a cron job. Unfortunately, it seems this is a false statement or simply an assumption from his part. Hence, it leads me to think the file fed to wanna-build needs a manual update from the CVS. Cheers, -- .''`. Aurélien GÉRÔME : :' : `. `'` Free Software Developer `- Unix Sys Net Admin signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Buildds still not picking up new architectures, why?
On Thursday 27 July 2006 14:26, Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote: Hi Ludovic, On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 12:45:11PM +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote: I have requested an update to Packages-arch-specific for asis and other packages, so that the buildds would try to build these packages on newly supported architectures. LaMont Jones made the requested changes on 2006-07-23 [1]. Yesterday (2006-07-26), I uploaded asis again (2005-4), hoping to have it built on all supported archs. But the buildds, again, only attempted builds on powerpc and sparc, ant not on the newly supported ones [2]. So do I with iroffer. Hell, I was going to do another upload of it to finally get it on ia64 and s390. However, what you say prevents me to do so for now. Lamont told me wanna-build gets an updated P-a-s from the CVS in less than 24 hours, probably by a cron job. Unfortunately, it seems this is a false statement or simply an assumption from his part. Hence, it leads me to think the file fed to wanna-build needs a manual update from the CVS. Hello, AFAICT Packages-arch-specific is a quinn-diff [1] conffile, so probably bugreports should be filed against that package, but I'm not sure if autobuilders actually use that package though. Also it seems like dak/wanna-build/trigger.daily [2] should call quinn-diff to pick up new entries from P-a-s, so not-picking new stuff should be filed against dak package or quinn-diff package ? I don't know how lene/christina is involved here. Hm, someone should really clarify these actually. [1] packages.debian.org/quinn-diff [2] http://cvs.debian.org/dak/wanna-build/trigger.daily?root=dakview=markup [3] http://cvs.debian.org/lene/christina?root=dakview=markup -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Buildds still not picking up new architectures, why?
Hi, On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 03:06:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: AFAICT Packages-arch-specific is a quinn-diff [1] conffile, so probably bugreports should be filed against that package, but I'm not sure if autobuilders actually use that package though. Also it seems like dak/wanna-build/trigger.daily [2] should call quinn-diff to pick up new entries from P-a-s, so not-picking new stuff should be filed against dak package or quinn-diff package ? I don't know how lene/christina is involved here. Hm, someone should really clarify these actually. Well, I do not think packages in the distribution are responsible for that situation. It is an infrastructure issue and the people holding the keys are always the same ones, with no time to do something about it and/or not willing to trust someone else to do the job. It is a dead end. [1] packages.debian.org/quinn-diff [2] http://cvs.debian.org/dak/wanna-build/trigger.daily?root=dakview=markup [3] http://cvs.debian.org/lene/christina?root=dakview=markup Cheers, -- .''`. Aurélien GÉRÔME : :' : `. `'` Free Software Developer `- Unix Sys Net Admin signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Buildds still not picking up new architectures, why?
On Thursday 27 July 2006 15:55, Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote: Hi, On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 03:06:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: AFAICT Packages-arch-specific is a quinn-diff [1] conffile, so probably bugreports should be filed against that package, but I'm not sure if autobuilders actually use that package though. Also it seems like dak/wanna-build/trigger.daily [2] should call quinn-diff to pick up new entries from P-a-s, so not-picking new stuff should be filed against dak package or quinn-diff package ? I don't know how lene/christina is involved here. Hm, someone should really clarify these actually. Well, I do not think packages in the distribution are responsible for that situation. It is an infrastructure issue and the people holding the keys are always the same ones, with no time to do something about it and/or not willing to trust someone else to do the job. It is a dead end. In fact these are two separate issues: a) why the infrastructure doesn't use these packages; b) where to collect P-a-s calls for updates. I just read at #128280, that these calls for updates are not wanted as wishlist bugs against quinn-diff package, but I think that storing them in public media i.e. BTS is far most robust solution (reveals when wishlists have been filed, and how have been dealt with), than just posting them to someone's mailbox... but anyway I'd tend to comply with the maintainer choice as said in the buglog. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Buildds still not picking up new architectures, why?
Ludovic Brenta [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have requested an update to Packages-arch-specific for asis and other packages, so that the buildds would try to build these packages on newly supported architectures. LaMont Jones made the requested changes on 2006-07-23 [1]. Yesterday (2006-07-26), I uploaded asis again (2005-4), hoping to have it built on all supported archs. But the buildds, again, only attempted builds on powerpc and sparc, ant not on the newly supported ones [2]. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/07/msg00856.html [2] http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?pkg=asis What is happening? The cvs version of P-a-s is updated. Now wanna-build (quinn-diff) needs to be updated to the new file. You can check the w-b status on http://buildd.debian.org/stats/ (bottom) to see when it lists the package. I don't think LaMont has access to w-b so you might have to ask Ryan or Elmo to do this. This is blocking the transition of Ada packages. Please respond directly to me as well as on the list. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Buildds still not picking up new architectures, why?
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 12:45:11PM +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote: I have requested an update to Packages-arch-specific for asis and other packages, so that the buildds would try to build these packages on newly supported architectures. LaMont Jones made the requested changes on 2006-07-23 [1]. Yesterday (2006-07-26), I uploaded asis again (2005-4), hoping to have it built on all supported archs. But the buildds, again, only attempted builds on powerpc and sparc, ant not on the newly supported ones [2]. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/07/msg00856.html [2] http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?pkg=asis What is happening? $ telnet cvs.debian.org cvspserver Trying 192.25.206.10... telnet: connect to address 192.25.206.10: Connection refused telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused $ Without pserver running, wanna-build can't get its updates from CVS. Ryan Murray (w-b admin, DSA) is aware of the problem. Please respond directly to me as well as on the list. Please use Mail-Followup-To so my mailer can respect this request automatically. :) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Getting the buildds to notice new architectures in a package
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 02:40:28PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote: Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message There is no such general solution. See http://www.debian.org/devel/buildd/wanna-build-states#not-for-us That says: However, wanna-build does not look at the control file of a package when creating its database; only at the packages' name and section, its urgency, and its priority. Shouldn't wanna-build use the control file? Perhaps. The issue is that wanna-build needs to know whether a package has already been built for its architecture; one can only find that out by looking at the Packages file, and comparing that with the Sources file. Since the Packages and Sources files contain all the information wanna-build needs (except for the architectures for which a build should be attempted), and since fetching the control files is a _lot_ more work than to write a parser for Packages and Sources files which can just be piped into wanna-build, it isn't done. Also, such a thing would probably require quite some I/O, so I'm not entirely sure it's worth it. But if you could write some patch which does not ever break and which allows to read the control file, I'm sure it'll be welcome. (I'm not sure why it still listed upload urgency as a criterion there -- that's a bug in the documentation that I introduced, but it's never been true. I've just committed a fix) It would then mean that the lists of packages-arch-specific would not be needed, except in the case of a single version override in the event that a package's control file accidentally listed an architecture on which it is not supported, or failed to list an architecture on which it is supported. The latter wouldn't work anyway -- if it isn't supported, dpkg-buildpackage refuses to build the package. Two things: - control files are part of the source. w-b would have to download and unpack every source package to get that file. - control files can be auto generated during build (e.g. glibc) and might not even list the packages and architectures If you want to get rid of the P-a-s file then I suggest you work on fixing the Architecture field in the Sources file to truely reflect the architectures the source should be build for. What you have to worry about is the case of architecture specific sources that also have architecture independent packages. In those cases the Architecture field lists any instead of e.g. i386 amd64 all. If you fix that and allow sources to override the Architecture field (for autogenerated control files like glibc) then the Sources.gz file would have all the right information in the normal case. This would cut down the P-a-s list seriously. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Getting the buildds to notice new architectures in a package
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 05:53:25AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: The buildd package could just be a central hub where two or three knowlegable people sift through the bug reports and then distribute it to the affected/responsible person. Who would you suggest would do that? I know it's not going to be me. Make a job description, sign it and post it to debian-devel-announce and the jobs page. If there is no volunteer that is it. Otherwise you have your person. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Getting the buildds to notice new architectures in a package
On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 09:56:22AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Two things: - control files are part of the source. w-b would have to download and unpack every source package to get that file. Exactly. - control files can be auto generated during build (e.g. glibc) and might not even list the packages and architectures Well, yeah, but if that changes anything about the control file that is of importance (like supported architectures or package names), then this information is quite blatantly ignored. And the build may fail. -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, Ashes to Ashes, stardate 53679.4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Getting the buildds to notice new architectures in a package
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 09:56:22AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Two things: - control files are part of the source. w-b would have to download and unpack every source package to get that file. Exactly. - control files can be auto generated during build (e.g. glibc) and might not even list the packages and architectures Well, yeah, but if that changes anything about the control file that is of importance (like supported architectures or package names), then this information is quite blatantly ignored. And the build may fail. Aeh, the only part that MUST not change is the source entry in debian/control. Any binary entry is afaik only used by tools forked from debian/rules (usualy dh_*). If you create the binary entries before you use them then everything works. Look at glibc for an example. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Getting the buildds to notice new architectures in a package
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 05:53:25AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: The buildd package could just be a central hub where two or three knowlegable people sift through the bug reports and then distribute it to the affected/responsible person. Who would you suggest would do that? I know it's not going to be me. -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, Ashes to Ashes, stardate 53679.4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Getting the buildds to notice new architectures in a package
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 10:55:32PM +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote: Where should I ask for help? Neither buildd.debian.org nor www.debian.org/devel/buildd, mention where the buildd admins can be reached; and lists.debian.org does not have a buildd@ list. [EMAIL PROTECTED]. I just committed a change to the wanna-build-states page to that effect. I will upload ~20 source packages in the next few weeks, adding support for more architectures to each package. So I'm really looking for a general solution and not one that only applies to asis. There is no such general solution. See http://www.debian.org/devel/buildd/wanna-build-states#not-for-us That says: However, wanna-build does not look at the control file of a package when creating its database; only at the packages' name and section, its urgency, and its priority. Shouldn't wanna-build use the control file? It would then mean that the lists of packages-arch-specific would not be needed, except in the case of a single version override in the event that a package's control file accidentally listed an architecture on which it is not supported, or failed to list an architecture on which it is supported. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Getting the buildds to notice new architectures in a package
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 02:40:28PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote: Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message There is no such general solution. See http://www.debian.org/devel/buildd/wanna-build-states#not-for-us That says: However, wanna-build does not look at the control file of a package when creating its database; only at the packages' name and section, its urgency, and its priority. Shouldn't wanna-build use the control file? Perhaps. The issue is that wanna-build needs to know whether a package has already been built for its architecture; one can only find that out by looking at the Packages file, and comparing that with the Sources file. Since the Packages and Sources files contain all the information wanna-build needs (except for the architectures for which a build should be attempted), and since fetching the control files is a _lot_ more work than to write a parser for Packages and Sources files which can just be piped into wanna-build, it isn't done. Also, such a thing would probably require quite some I/O, so I'm not entirely sure it's worth it. But if you could write some patch which does not ever break and which allows to read the control file, I'm sure it'll be welcome. (I'm not sure why it still listed upload urgency as a criterion there -- that's a bug in the documentation that I introduced, but it's never been true. I've just committed a fix) It would then mean that the lists of packages-arch-specific would not be needed, except in the case of a single version override in the event that a package's control file accidentally listed an architecture on which it is not supported, or failed to list an architecture on which it is supported. The latter wouldn't work anyway -- if it isn't supported, dpkg-buildpackage refuses to build the package. -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, Ashes to Ashes, stardate 53679.4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Getting the buildds to notice new architectures in a package
On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 10:55:32PM +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote: I will upload ~20 source packages in the next few weeks, adding support for more architectures to each package. So I'm really looking for a general solution and not one that only applies to asis. Why aren't those packages arch:any? asis neither uses any hardware devices, nor appears to have assembly code anywhere inside. -- 1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor: // Never attribute to stupidity what can be // adequately explained by malice. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Getting the buildds to notice new architectures in a package
On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 10:55:32PM +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote: Where should I ask for help? Neither buildd.debian.org nor www.debian.org/devel/buildd, mention where the buildd admins can be reached; and lists.debian.org does not have a buildd@ list. [EMAIL PROTECTED]. I just committed a change to the wanna-build-states page to that effect. I will upload ~20 source packages in the next few weeks, adding support for more architectures to each package. So I'm really looking for a general solution and not one that only applies to asis. There is no such general solution. See http://www.debian.org/devel/buildd/wanna-build-states#not-for-us -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, Ashes to Ashes, stardate 53679.4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Getting the buildds to notice new architectures in a package
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 10:55:32PM +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote: Where should I ask for help? Neither buildd.debian.org nor www.debian.org/devel/buildd, mention where the buildd admins can be reached; and lists.debian.org does not have a buildd@ list. [EMAIL PROTECTED]. I just committed a change to the wanna-build-states page to that effect. Thanks; I was aware of these, but the problem was not with any one architecture in particular; it was with Packages-arch-specific. Luk Claes pointed me to it, and I've submitted a request to the admins. (BTW, thanks, Luk.) It would perhaps be a good idea to mention the existence of Package-arch-specific, how it works, and who admins it on the buildd.debian.org front page, don't you think? Also, I would propose that a list, [EMAIL PROTECTED], or even better, a pseudo-package, buildd, be created for such issues. buildd would complement ftp.debian.org as a central place for buildd-related requests. I will upload ~20 source packages in the next few weeks, adding support for more architectures to each package. So I'm really looking for a general solution and not one that only applies to asis. There is no such general solution. See http://www.debian.org/devel/buildd/wanna-build-states#not-for-us Thanks. I had already read that. It says: ! A package in not-for-us or packages-arch-specific will not leave ! this state automatically; if your package specifically excluded a ! given architecture in its control file previously, but now includes ! more architectures, it must be manually requeued. But it does not say how I should go about reque manually. -- Ludovic Brenta. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Getting the buildds to notice new architectures in a package
On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 06:31:56PM +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote: Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 10:55:32PM +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote: Where should I ask for help? Neither buildd.debian.org nor www.debian.org/devel/buildd, mention where the buildd admins can be reached; and lists.debian.org does not have a buildd@ list. [EMAIL PROTECTED]. I just committed a change to the wanna-build-states page to that effect. Thanks; I was aware of these, but the problem was not with any one architecture in particular; it was with Packages-arch-specific. There is a large overlap between the maintainers of packages-arch-specific and the buildd maintainers. This is only normal, since p-a-s exists only to the benefit of buildd... Luk Claes pointed me to it, and I've submitted a request to the admins. (BTW, thanks, Luk.) It would perhaps be a good idea to mention the existence of Package-arch-specific, how it works, and who admins it on the buildd.debian.org front page, don't you think? No. Buildd.debian.org is an interface which shows build logs to non-buildd people (us buildd maintainers get relevant logs in our mailboxes around the time they appear on buildd.d.o anyway). It is not the place where buildd is documented, nor should it be; there are other places for that. (it *might* be a good idea for buildd.d.o to point to the relevant documentation, but you need to talk to Ryan Murray to get that :-) Also, I would propose that a list, [EMAIL PROTECTED], or even better, a pseudo-package, buildd, be created for such issues. buildd would complement ftp.debian.org as a central place for buildd-related requests. This has been proposed before. It would only work if buildd maintainers agree to use it. Personally, I feel that a generic buildd list for all architectures is a bit over the top (there is rarely ever need for that, it would probably only be abused (intentionally or otherwise) by people who don't need to contact all buildd maintainers anyway). I will upload ~20 source packages in the next few weeks, adding support for more architectures to each package. So I'm really looking for a general solution and not one that only applies to asis. There is no such general solution. See http://www.debian.org/devel/buildd/wanna-build-states#not-for-us Thanks. I had already read that. It says: ! A package in not-for-us or packages-arch-specific will not leave ! this state automatically; if your package specifically excluded a ! given architecture in its control file previously, but now includes ! more architectures, it must be manually requeued. But it does not say how I should go about reque manually. Yes, that's the change I have just committed ($arch@). Some architectures do still use not-for-us rather than p-a-s. It's better to use the latter (since it isn't arch-speicific), but if hasn't been used, then it doesn't help to contact a p-a-s maintainer, since he may not be able to get the package in the needs-build state. That's why I suggeted contacting the relevant buildd maintainer. -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, Ashes to Ashes, stardate 53679.4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Getting the buildds to notice new architectures in a package
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 06:31:56PM +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote: Also, I would propose that a list, [EMAIL PROTECTED], or even better, a pseudo-package, buildd, be created for such issues. buildd would complement ftp.debian.org as a central place for buildd-related requests. This has been proposed before. It would only work if buildd maintainers agree to use it. Personally, I feel that a generic buildd list for all architectures is a bit over the top (there is rarely ever need for that, it would probably only be abused (intentionally or otherwise) by people who don't need to contact all buildd maintainers anyway). The buildd package could just be a central hub where two or three knowlegable people sift through the bug reports and then distribute it to the affected/responsible person. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Getting the buildds to notice new architectures in a package
Hello, Package asis (=3.15p-10) supports i386, kfreebsd-i386, sparc, and powerpc. I uploaded the next version (=2005-3) a couple of days ago. It adds support for more architectures, namely: amd63, hppa, and ia64. I notice that the buildds have successfully built the powerpc and sparc packages, but seem to ignore the new architectures. I am waiting for all architectures to be rebuilt so that I can re-upload adacontrol, which build-depends on asis. In the mean time, adacontrol has a RC bug #378160 because of this problem. Where should I ask for help? Neither buildd.debian.org nor www.debian.org/devel/buildd, mention where the buildd admins can be reached; and lists.debian.org does not have a buildd@ list. I will upload ~20 source packages in the next few weeks, adding support for more architectures to each package. So I'm really looking for a general solution and not one that only applies to asis. Thanks for any help. PS. Please reply to me directly, as well as to the list. -- Ludovic Brenta. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Getting the buildds to notice new architectures in a package
Ludovic Brenta wrote: Hello, Hi Ludovic Package asis (=3.15p-10) supports i386, kfreebsd-i386, sparc, and powerpc. I uploaded the next version (=2005-3) a couple of days ago. It adds support for more architectures, namely: amd63, hppa, and ia64. You should contact the buildd maintainers (actually the Packages-arch-specific maintainers [1]) when you add support for an architecture. I notice that the buildds have successfully built the powerpc and sparc packages, but seem to ignore the new architectures. I am waiting for all architectures to be rebuilt so that I can re-upload adacontrol, which build-depends on asis. In the mean time, adacontrol has a RC bug #378160 because of this problem. Where should I ask for help? Neither buildd.debian.org nor www.debian.org/devel/buildd, mention where the buildd admins can be reached; and lists.debian.org does not have a buildd@ list. arch@buildd.debian.org is the way buildd admins can be reached. I will upload ~20 source packages in the next few weeks, adding support for more architectures to each package. So I'm really looking for a general solution and not one that only applies to asis. This is already known by the Release Team, I'm not sure if the news has already reached the P-a-s maintainers... PS. Please reply to me directly, as well as to the list. Ok. Cheers Luk [1] These maintainers are listed at the top of the file http://cvs.debian.org/srcdep/Packages-arch-specific?cvsroot=dak -- Luk Claes - http://people.debian.org/~luk - GPG key 1024D/9B7C328D Fingerprint: D5AF 25FB 316B 53BB 08E7 F999 E544 DE07 9B7C 328D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
