On Sat, Mar 17, 2001 at 06:56:31PM -0500, Roland McGrath wrote: > > binutils: Crashes the Hurd mid-compile > > Is this a crash whose details have been reported?
Sort of, I reported it to bug-hurd, and you suggested that it's the proc server dying. I haven't done the whole sub-hurd thing, because it takes nearly an hour for it to die and today is the first day that I have been home and awake more than an hour in awhile. > > elvis-tiny: Needs termio.h, which libc6-dev provides but libc0.2-dev doesn't > > Anything that uses termio.h is usually very easy to convert to use the > POSIX.1 termios.h interface instead, and that is a better thing to use on > Linux as well. Okay - Are maintainers typically willing to accept these changes? > > If you're interested in helping me get some of these to compile, let me > > know - I'd like to avoid duplication of effort (I cheerfully will let > > other people do any of the work they want to!) > > Since you are building so many packages, it would be helpful if I could > look at an automated web page that tells me the status of each package, > and ideally lets me get the full output of the last build attempt. I'll dig out Marcus' instructions on how to make turtle do this. > > If there is are Debian packages that *compiles cleanly* that you want, > > please let me know. I don't have the time to chase source bugs right > > now, but if something is buildable, I will keep it up to date. > > It would be great to have something automated to try new packages, if that > is not hard for you to do. I have been slowly adding packages one by one. I'm starting with anything that's been uploaded before. > What I have in mind is something that simply > attempts to build a package and records what happened. Then these would be > automatically classified into "built" and "failed to build" (and maybe > "built but with warnings" if you have some regex matching on the compile > output); for things that support "make check" you could try that too and > add another bit to the matrix in the output. I would like to see 'make check' become a standard part of building debian packages for those that support it. I think perl already does this - I don't know of the best way to suggest this, however. > For anything that builds > successfully, then a human can take a quick look at the build log and see > if it looks like it might really be usable, and then decide to actually try > it out; when a human declares an autobuilt package is actually usable, it > can be published. Is the volunteer pool large enough to support this much work? I'd really like to get us to the point where we could consider participating in 'testing'. I also know that for many of the packages, I can't tell by simply running it if it's functional or not. Libraries will be even worse. > For anything that fails to build, then a human can take > a quick look at the build log and with very little effort decide from the > kinds of errors whether or not they want to make the attempt to fix it. Makes sense. > It would be ideal to have this kind of system processing a queue of all > source packages in the debian pool as new or updated ones arrive. > It could > prioritize the queue, <snip> > If such a system is set up and does a little bit of extra > coordination to farm out pieces of the work, then several of us can set up > hurd machines that spend their spare time working on autobuilding while we > sleep. Yup - I have been talking to Marcus about exactly this kind of delegation. I have 1 full-time Hurd system, and 2 other machines that can be nighttime hurd boxes so I need this to coordinate between them anyway. -- My UUism extends beyond national boundaries.
