Hi On 2023-09-02 18:27:39 +0100, Samuel Henrique wrote: > Hello Sebastian anb Paul, > > > So let's not just rebuild those. Samuel, please file bugs against those > > packages so that the maintainers fix the build dependencies. > > I have filled bugs already, here's the current situation: > > eg25-manager: > https://bugs.debian.org/1043547 > Has been fixed in git already, so the next upload will have the correct B-D. > > llvm-toolchain-14 and llvm-toolchain-15: > https://bugs.debian.org/1043550 > https://bugs.debian.org/1043551 > > I have not explicitly asked for the B-D change for llvm, and I think > doing it so will be a waste of time and effort, let me explain. > Both llvm-toolchain-14 and llvm-toolchain-15 will be removed from the > archive soon, see their ROM bugs: > https://bugs.debian.org/1050069 > https://bugs.debian.org/1050070
Removing old llvm-toolchain versions usually takes month. For reference, removal of llvm-toolchain-13 took a year (RM bug was filed in August 2022) and is still part of trixie. > On top of that, those two packages have already been rebuilt for > riscv64 (no binNMUs required there), whereas if we force another > upload only to solve this, we will trigger a build for every arch and > needlessly consume at the very least 77 hours of the riscv builders' > time (while we are still rebuilding the archive for riscv, delaying it > all). > https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=llvm-toolchain-14&arch=riscv64 > https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=llvm-toolchain-15&arch=riscv64 > > Do you think that's a sensible compromise? > I'm asking to proceed with binNMUs because eg25-manager has been fixed > in git already and the llvm packages are about to be removed (although > I want curl to migrate before that), also rebuilding them on riscv > takes a lot of effort at a not-so-great time (no binNMUs required for > riscv). Please get those uploaded instead. We will rebuild llvm-toolchain-{14,15} a bunch of times for transitions anyway. If riscv64 buildds are not ready to cope with that, the architecture is not ready to become a release architecture. > Note: llvm-toolchain-16, which is going to be the new default, has > already fixed the B-D and the package has been uploaded, so that's why > there's no action for that one. llvm-toolchain-16 can only become the default once its build is fixed on mips64el. I have seen no progress in that direction, though. Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher
