Re: Problems with Debian PowerPC
On Dec 17, 2009, at 5:39 PM, Frans Pop wrote:
On Thursday 17 December 2009, Rick Thomas wrote:
It may not be "grave" for the installer (indeed, you've already
established at great length that it's not an installer problem at
all)
but that doesn't make it any the less grave for whatever package it
does belong to. You've given me a few hints as to how to figure out
what package that might be. Any further help -- from anyone more
knowledgeable than I -- will be appreciated, of course.
This looks like a fairly likely reason:
http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/gnome-core
For some reason the package was forced to testing even though it was
not
available on all architectures.
If that is the reason, then it means that Gnome is currently not
installable on all but 5 architectures. With powerpc probably the
only one
very many people will really care about (though that's a steadily
declining number).
It's almost certain that both the relevant package maintainer and the
release team are already aware of this and that it has been a
conscious
choice to accept the breakage. Whether or not it should block the
release
of D-I is up to others.
How did I get there (I needed the roundabout way because I don't
have a
powerpc box; it would have been trivial to check in aptitude)?
- http://edos.debian.net/edos-debcheck/
- choose squeeze -> in the most recent run, choose powerpc ->
http://edos.debian.net/edos-debcheck/results/testing/1261006803/powerpc/list.php
And notice that gnome-accessibility (and a few others, but that
seems the
most likely cause) is listed, and check the reasons.
A new version of the package (1:2.28+3) has been built for all arches:
https://buildd.debian.org/~luk/status/package.php?p=meta-gnome2
But looks to be blocked by other packages for now:
http://release.debian.org/migration/testing.pl?package=meta-gnome2
Here, for the record, is the log of an attempt to do "aptitude full-
upgrade" on my Debian Squeeze PowerPC test machine.
Here's the part that first indicates there might be trouble...
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
epiphany-extensions-more: Depends: epiphany-extensions (< 2.27) but
2.28.1-2 is to be installed.
epiphany-browser: Conflicts: epiphany-gecko but 2.29.3-1 is to be
installed.
grdc: Depends: remmina which is a virtual package.
gnome: Depends: tomboy (>= 1.0) but it is not installable
Happy Solstice!
Rick
greybox:~# aptitude -Pv full-upgrade
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Reading extended state information
Initializing package states... Done
Reading task descriptions... Done
The following packages are BROKEN:
epiphany-browser epiphany-extensions-more gnome grdc
The following NEW packages will be installed:
gir1.0-clutter-0.8{a} gir1.0-freedesktop{a} gir1.0-glib-2.0{a}
gir1.0-gstreamer-0.10{a} gir1.0-gtk-2.0{a}
gnome-disk-utility{a} gnome-js-common{a} libclutter-0.8-0{a}
libclutter-cairo-0.8-0{a} libclutter-gtk-0.8-0{a}
libgdu-gtk0{a} libseed0{a}
The following packages will be REMOVED:
binfmt-support{u} cli-common{u} libart2.0-cil{u} libgconf2.0-cil{u}
libglade2.0-cil{u} libglib2.0-cil{u}
libgmime-2.0-2a{u} libgmime2.2a-cil{u} libgnome-vfs2.0-cil{u}
libgnome2.24-cil{u} libgnomepanel2.24-cil{u}
libgtk2.0-cil{u} libmono-addins-gui0.2-cil{u} libmono-addins0.2-cil{u}
libmono-cairo2.0-cil{u} libmono-corlib2.0-cil{u}
libmono-i18n-west2.0-cil{u} libmono-posix2.0-cil{u}
libmono-security2.0-cil{u} libmono-sharpzip2.84-cil{u}
libmono-system2.0-cil{u} libndesk-dbus-glib1.0-cil{u} libndesk-dbus1.0-cil{u}
mono-2.0-gac{u} mono-gac{u} mono-runtime{u}
swfdec-mozilla{a} tomboy{u}
The following packages will be upgraded:
epiphany-browser-data epiphany-extensions epiphany-gecko gnome-accessibility
gnome-core gnome-desktop-environment
gnome-office
9 packages upgraded, 13 newly installed, 28 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 11.5MB of archives. After unpacking 17.7MB will be freed.
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
epiphany-extensions-more: Depends: epiphany-extensions (< 2.27) but 2.28.1-2
is to be installed.
epiphany-browser: Conflicts: epiphany-gecko but 2.29.3-1 is to be installed.
grdc: Depends: remmina which is a virtual package.
gnome: Depends: tomboy (>= 1.0) but it is not installable
The following actions will resolve these dependencies:
Remove the following packages:
epiphany-extensions-more
epiphany-gecko
gnome
Keep the following packages at their current version:
grdc [Not Installed]
Score is 266
Accept this solution? [Y/n/q/?] r gnome UNINST
Rejecting the removal of gnome
Accept this solution? [Y/n/q/?] n
The following actions will resolve these dependencies:
Keep the following packages at their current version:
epiphany-browser [2.26.3-2 (now)]
epiphany-browser-data [2.26.3-2 (now)]
epiphany-extensions [2.26.1-1 (now)]
epiphany-gecko [2.26.3-2 (now)]
gnome [1:2.26+0 (now)]
gn
Re: Problems with Debian PowerPC
Frans Pop wrote: > On Friday 18 December 2009, Philipp Kern wrote: >> While I did not take care about the fallout due to time constraints on >> my side, I did take a look at the meta-gnome2 migration back then. We >> did not place any approval hint but it seems that the multiple arch:all >> confused britney sufficiently so that she decided to migrate those >> packages without any hint at all. >> >> Sadly I was unable to track down the bug in question and our log keeping >> is currently almost non-existant. >> >> As soon as something is copied over to testing autobuilding is >> automatically stopped, which might be another bug of its own. > > So, what can be done to fix the current breakage? Have tomboy (and mono) migrate to testing so meta-gnome2 can migrate to testing. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Problems with Debian PowerPC
On Friday 18 December 2009, Philipp Kern wrote: > While I did not take care about the fallout due to time constraints on > my side, I did take a look at the meta-gnome2 migration back then. We > did not place any approval hint but it seems that the multiple arch:all > confused britney sufficiently so that she decided to migrate those > packages without any hint at all. > > Sadly I was unable to track down the bug in question and our log keeping > is currently almost non-existant. > > As soon as something is copied over to testing autobuilding is > automatically stopped, which might be another bug of its own. So, what can be done to fix the current breakage? Cheers, FJP -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Problems with Debian PowerPC
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 02:49:47PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > It's almost certain that both the relevant package maintainer and the > > release team are already aware of this and that it has been a conscious > > choice to accept the breakage. > Given that the package version clearly indicates it reached testing by way > of testing-proposed-updates, I think it's unwise to assume this. Cc:ing > debian-release for input on the uninstallability of gnome in testing. While I did not take care about the fallout due to time constraints on my side, I did take a look at the meta-gnome2 migration back then. We did not place any approval hint but it seems that the multiple arch:all confused britney sufficiently so that she decided to migrate those packages without any hint at all. Sadly I was unable to track down the bug in question and our log keeping is currently almost non-existant. As soon as something is copied over to testing autobuilding is automatically stopped, which might be another bug of its own. Kind regards, Philipp Kern -- .''`. Philipp KernDebian Developer : :' : http://philkern.de Stable Release Manager `. `' xmpp:p...@0x539.de Wanna-Build Admin `-finger pkern/k...@db.debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Problems with Debian PowerPC
On Thursday 17 December 2009, Frans Pop wrote: > On Thursday 17 December 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Given that the package version clearly indicates it reached testing by > > way of testing-proposed-updates, I think it's unwise to assume this. > > Cc:ing debian-release for input on the uninstallability of gnome in > > testing. > > You're right, I missed that. OTOH, it must still have been consciously accepted from testing-p-u into testing by the release team, despite missing arches. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Problems with Debian PowerPC
On Thursday 17 December 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: > Given that the package version clearly indicates it reached testing by > way of testing-proposed-updates, I think it's unwise to assume this. > Cc:ing debian-release for input on the uninstallability of gnome in > testing. You're right, I missed that. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Problems with Debian PowerPC
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:39:39PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: > This looks like a fairly likely reason: > http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/gnome-core > For some reason the package was forced to testing even though it was not > available on all architectures. > If that is the reason, then it means that Gnome is currently not > installable on all but 5 architectures. With powerpc probably the only one > very many people will really care about (though that's a steadily > declining number). > It's almost certain that both the relevant package maintainer and the > release team are already aware of this and that it has been a conscious > choice to accept the breakage. Given that the package version clearly indicates it reached testing by way of testing-proposed-updates, I think it's unwise to assume this. Cc:ing debian-release for input on the uninstallability of gnome in testing. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Problems with Debian PowerPC
On Thursday 17 December 2009, Rick Thomas wrote: > It may not be "grave" for the installer (indeed, you've already > established at great length that it's not an installer problem at all) > but that doesn't make it any the less grave for whatever package it > does belong to. You've given me a few hints as to how to figure out > what package that might be. Any further help -- from anyone more > knowledgeable than I -- will be appreciated, of course. This looks like a fairly likely reason: http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/gnome-core For some reason the package was forced to testing even though it was not available on all architectures. If that is the reason, then it means that Gnome is currently not installable on all but 5 architectures. With powerpc probably the only one very many people will really care about (though that's a steadily declining number). It's almost certain that both the relevant package maintainer and the release team are already aware of this and that it has been a conscious choice to accept the breakage. Whether or not it should block the release of D-I is up to others. How did I get there (I needed the roundabout way because I don't have a powerpc box; it would have been trivial to check in aptitude)? - http://edos.debian.net/edos-debcheck/ - choose squeeze -> in the most recent run, choose powerpc -> http://edos.debian.net/edos-debcheck/results/testing/1261006803/powerpc/list.php And notice that gnome-accessibility (and a few others, but that seems the most likely cause) is listed, and check the reasons. A new version of the package (1:2.28+3) has been built for all arches: https://buildd.debian.org/~luk/status/package.php?p=meta-gnome2 But looks to be blocked by other packages for now: http://release.debian.org/migration/testing.pl?package=meta-gnome2 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Problems with Debian PowerPC
On Dec 17, 2009, at 12:22 PM, Frans Pop wrote: (And please do not over-inflate the severity of bug reports: a desktop environment not being installable does not make the installation system unusable.) It may not be "grave" for the installer (indeed, you've already established at great length that it's not an installer problem at all) but that doesn't make it any the less grave for whatever package it does belong to. You've given me a few hints as to how to figure out what package that might be. Any further help -- from anyone more knowledgeable than I -- will be appreciated, of course. Season's greetings... Rick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Problems with Debian PowerPC
On Thursday 17 December 2009, Rick Thomas wrote: > > What problems exist in Squeeze? > > Here's the Squeeze problem (from my original posting in this thread): > >>> 3) When I install a "graphical desktop environment" with Squeeze > >>> using the above d-i images, I get a system that is missing almost > >>> all of gnome due to un-resolvable dependency conflicts. Ah, sorry. I'd not read that correctly. I thought you were talking about sid there too. That invalidates part of my earlier responses. So, it can be - a general problem resulting from the release team forcing through some migration and thus (*temporarily*) breaking dependencies - an architecture specific problem where the release team has decided to ignore breakage on powerpc in order not to delay other arches - an unknown issue I've just checked if the gnome task is installable for Squeeze on amd64, and it is. So either the problem has already been solved, or it is specific to powerpc. > > Please file an installation report. > I did, a while ago: Bug#560684 OK. I missed that one (or deleted it without really looking at it as it wasn't an issue I'm personally very interested in). I would expect Otavio as D-I release manager to be interested in the installability of Gnome as it affects his plans to release D-I alpha1. (And please do not over-inflate the severity of bug reports: a desktop environment not being installable does not make the installation system unusable.) > But you'll just say "there is *nothing* wrong with the installer", so > what's the point? The point is that *we* cannot do anything about it. You need to report problems to the people responsible for the packages that are failing. > I'll repeat my offer: What can I, as a non developer -- just an > interested and willing tester, do to help? Find out the exact cause of the problems and report them to the relevant maintainers: - which packages have dependency problems - is the problem only on powerpc, or is it general These things can be found out relatively simply using aptitude and packages.debian.org. Cheers, FJP -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Problems with Debian PowerPC
On Dec 17, 2009, at 10:48 AM, Frans Pop wrote: On Thursday 17 December 2009, Rick Thomas wrote: I have listed several problems that exist in Sid and Squeeze, some of which prevent successful installation (even though there is nothing wrong with the installer). The problems in Sid are not interesting as they will fix themselves. What problems exist in Squeeze? Here's the Squeeze problem (from my original posting in this thread): 3) When I install a "graphical desktop environment" with Squeeze using the above d-i images, I get a system that is missing almost all of gnome due to un-resolvable dependency conflicts. Please file an installation report. I did, a while ago: Bug#560684 But you'll just say "there is *nothing* wrong with the installer", so what's the point? I'll repeat my offer: What can I, as a non developer -- just an interested and willing tester, do to help? Rick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Problems with Debian PowerPC
On Thursday 17 December 2009, Rick Thomas wrote: > I have listed several problems that exist in Sid and Squeeze, some of > which prevent successful installation (even though there is nothing > wrong with the installer). The problems in Sid are not interesting as they will fix themselves. What problems exist in Squeeze? Please file an installation report. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Problems with Debian PowerPC
On Dec 16, 2009, at 10:38 PM, Frans Pop wrote: Again, there is *nothing* wrong with the installer here. We welcome reports of issues with installations of testing, but issues with sid are seldom caused by problems in the installer. If you say so, I have to agree that there is *nothing* wrong with the installer. But that doesn't mean that there is nothing wrong, period. I have listed several problems that exist in Sid and Squeeze, some of which prevent successful installation (even though there is nothing wrong with the installer). These problems will not fix themselves. And they won't get fixed if nobody brings them up in public. I'm just bringing them up so they can get fixed. I'm sorry if cross-posting it to debian-boot has offended you, Franz. Please accept my apology. Rick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Problems with Debian PowerPC
On Thursday 17 December 2009, Rogério Brito wrote: > I will see with Otávio what can be done from the d-i side of it (I'm not > really up to d-i things, since I've been working with the main > distribution instead of with installers). But I can try to look at it. I already replied to the original mail on the d-boot list [1], but had missed the fact it was so heavily cross-posted. Please don't waste any time on this as there really is nothing wrong here. All mentioned issues have just one cause: sid being unstable, exactly as it is supposed to be. Users who want to "install" sid are almost always better of first installing testing and then upgrading to sid. This will avoid most of the issues unstable can have at any time, such as uninstallable packages due to library transitions or missing kernel packages due to build failures for a particular architecture. Again, there is *nothing* wrong with the installer here. We welcome reports of issues with installations of testing, but issues with sid are seldom caused by problems in the installer. Note that additional help with the installer, especially for non-mainstream arches like powerpc, is very much wanted. So if anyone does want to help, please do join the d-boot list, and start testing and working on issues. Cheers, FJP [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2009/12/msg00257.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Problems with Debian PowerPC
Hi there (reading from -powerpc).
On Dec 16 2009, Rick Thomas wrote:
> Debian on PowerPC seems to be in trouble...
I just purchased me a "new" (used, in fact) iBook G4 and this is the
first altivec-enabled box that I have. It is also a bit faster than my
other powerpc machines.
(BTW, if you can donate a powerpc machine, I am interested in
that---please, reply privately if you can).
> 1) The daily d-i CDImage for PowerPC hasn't been updated since Dec 12th.
>
> http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/daily-builds/daily/arch-latest/powerpc/iso-cd/
I will see with Otávio what can be done from the d-i side of it (I'm not
really up to d-i things, since I've been working with the main
distribution instead of with installers). But I can try to look at it.
> 2) Even if it were updated, it still would not be possible to install
> Debian Sid on PowerPC due to the lack of a linux-image package more
> up-to-date than 2.6.30. This problem has existed for several weeks.
Did not know that, as I am usually running my own kernels. Is there any
breakage in any drivers with a current git tree? I just compiled
yesterday a kernel from Linus' tree for an OldWorld mac and it was
successful (actually, that was a cross-compilation).
> 3) When I install a "graphical desktop environment" with Squeeze
> using the above d-i images, I get a system that is missing almost
> all of gnome due to un-resolvable dependency conflicts.
>
> Can anything be done about to fix this? What can I (as a user, non-
> developer, but willing tester) do to help?
Well, there is probably things that can be done. The problem would be to
get a more precise diagnostic. And, yes, a tester is always, always
wanted.
For instance, which part of gnome is not installable? Have you tried
seeing the subpackages which gnome uses (if you're going for the
full-blown metapackage---I always stay away from that for philosophical
reasons, as I want a "different" gnome from what one gets by default).
Regards, Rogério Brito.
P.S.: Otávio, please, get in touch.
--
Rogério Brito : rbr...@{ime.usp.br,gmail.com} : GPG key 1024D/7C2CAEB8
http://rb.doesntexist.org : Packages for LaTeX : algorithms.berlios.de
DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Problems with Debian PowerPC
On Thursday 17 December 2009, Rick Thomas wrote: > The installation fails at the stage where you are presented with a > bunch of linux-image packages and asked which one to install. > > All of the options presented depend on linux-image-2.6.31-1, which > does not exist in any repo I've looked at. That can be explained by the way the kernel packages have been updated in unstable and some build failures for of the kernel for powerpc. There's no bug in the installer and nothing we can do about it. > I believe there is a FTBFS problem with the 2.6.31 kernel version on > PowerPC, which has existed for several weeks. 2.6.31 is no longer relevant because .32 has already been uploaded to unstable. > Is there anybody working on that? See above, but if anybody was, it would be the kernel team and we would not necessarily know about it. The state of the kernel in unstable is not relevant for us (except for updating the kernel udebs). > If it's not fixed, it may prevent > installation of Squeeze in the future as things migrate downwards in > due course. No. The kernel will ONLY be allowed to migrate when it has been built correctly for all arches and dependencies from the meta packages are correct. And the same goes for other packages (with a few exceptions). And that is exactly why testing normally *can* be relied on to be installable and unstable cannot. > But since it prevents Sid installs from working, I just thought > you'd like to know. As I mentioned in my previous mail: unstable can be broken for any weird random reasons and in any weird random ways. Expecting unstable to be installable is just a losing proposition. We do not want to know about sid being uninstallable, because it is guaranteed to happen. Not always, but regularly and for wildly varying reasons that are absolutely not interesting to us. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Problems with Debian PowerPC
On Dec 16, 2009, at 3:59 PM, Frans Pop wrote: 2) Even if it were updated, it still would not be possible to install Debian Sid on PowerPC due to the lack of a linux-image package more up- to-date than 2.6.30. This problem has existed for several weeks. Why does that hinder installation? All architectures use 2.6.30 in the installer. And the linux-image packages are not the responsibility of the D-I team. The installation fails at the stage where you are presented with a bunch of linux-image packages and asked which one to install. All of the options presented depend on linux-image-2.6.31-1, which does not exist in any repo I've looked at. None of the options presented will install linux-image-2.6.30-2, which does exist -- but only in the Squeeze repo. This makes sense, of course -- we're trying to install Sid, not Squeeze. I believe there is a FTBFS problem with the 2.6.31 kernel version on PowerPC, which has existed for several weeks. Is there anybody working on that? If it's not fixed, it may prevent installation of Squeeze in the future as things migrate downwards in due course. You're right, of course, that none of this is the fault of the d-i team. But since it prevents Sid installs from working, I just thought you'd like to know. Happy Holidays... Rick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Problems with Debian PowerPC
On Wednesday 16 December 2009, Rick Thomas wrote: > 1) The daily d-i CDImage for PowerPC hasn't been updated since Dec 12th. > http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/daily-builds/daily/arch-latest/powerp >c/iso-cd/ That is only 4 days. > 2) Even if it were updated, it still would not be possible to install > Debian Sid on PowerPC due to the lack of a linux-image package more up- > to-date than 2.6.30. This problem has existed for several weeks. Why does that hinder installation? All architectures use 2.6.30 in the installer. And the linux-image packages are not the responsibility of the D-I team. > 3) When I install a "graphical desktop environment" with Squeeze using > the above d-i images, I get a system that is missing almost all of > gnome due to un-resolvable dependency conflicts. That is also not the responsibility of the D-I team. In general, you can *never* be certain that sid is installable, and certainly not the desktop task. The better option is *always* to install testing and then upgrade to sid afterwards. Cheers, FJP -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
