Re: Bug#721776: libprelude: FTBFS on kfreebsd (FAIL: test-poll)
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 03:07:43 +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote: 2. connection in the past few minutes is in TIME_WAIT state - for some reason it still fails even though SO_REUSEADDR is requested here (and I think this is important - needs followup). There seems to be a race within the test program that can trigger this problem itself sometimes. SO_REUSEADDR is requested after bind(), though, which is broken. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: where is eclipse?
Bruno Melo: why eclipse is not in kfreebsd? it's the best ide, i think necessary... We can't build it until after the openjdk-7 transition, I'm afraid. Speaking of which, what's the current status? AFAICT -release said it doesn't require their explicit approval? -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/522a2f42.9010...@debian.org
Re: where is eclipse?
On 06/09/13 20:38, Robert Millan wrote: Speaking of which, what's the current status? AFAICT -release said it doesn't require their explicit approval? Oops, I forgot to copy my reply to the list: On 06/09/13 11:54, Steven Chamberlain wrote: On 06/09/13 04:52, Bruno Melo wrote: why eclipse is not in kfreebsd? it's the best ide, i think necessary... It fails to build with our default-jdk. On kfreebsd that is currently gcj, which seems insufficient to build eclipse. So, eclipse could maybe change to a more specific build-depends if that's appropriate, so that openjdk-7-jdk is used, since we do have it. Or otherwise we need to update our default java to openjdk-7 like on other platforms. We can maybe do that, but the maintainer had concerns: http://lists.debian.org/52167a2a.80...@debian.org Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/522a3889.2080...@pyro.eu.org
Processing of kfreebsd-kernel-headers_9.2~2_kfreebsd-amd64.changes
kfreebsd-kernel-headers_9.2~2_kfreebsd-amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: kfreebsd-kernel-headers_9.2~2.dsc kfreebsd-kernel-headers_9.2~2.tar.gz kfreebsd-kernel-headers_9.2~2_kfreebsd-amd64.deb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1vi2lu-00048t...@franck.debian.org
Re: Bug#721886: FTBFS on kfreebsd-*: glibtop_machine.h:26:19: fatal error: nlist.h: No such file or directory
Michael Biebl: Am 06.09.2013 02:49, schrieb Michael Biebl: /usr/include/sys/vnode.h:41:27: fatal error: sys/rangelock.h: No such file or directory #include sys/rangelock.h FWIW, this looks like a bug in sys/vnode.h or kfreebsd-kernel-headers. Thanks. Fixed in 9.2~2. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/522a3724.3040...@debian.org
Re: where is eclipse?
On 06/09/2013 23:24, Steven Chamberlain wrote: On 06/09/13 21:55, Robert Millan wrote: The way I see it, as things stand now it makes a lot more sense to bypass default-jdk in order to get things working... What do you mean by that? To tighten the build-dependencies of eclipse and others, that can't build with gcj? I think the risk is that openjdk-7 could be removed from kfreebsd-* in sid at the request of the maintainer, if we're unable to keep it building+working. We may then lose packages that FTBFS without it (but if we don't change, we'd never have had them in the first place). Other packages should fall back to gcj and still be okay. I think that pushing to upstream the changes done for the Kfreebsd port would be the way to ensure that it is maintained... It seems we could go ahead without treating this like a transition. I was thinking we may want to ask the Release Team for rebuilds of some already-built packages to use the new java-defaults. Even if that's refused, it's still not a problem. And given the risk of maybe losing openjdk-7 or otherwise having to go back to gcj, maybe we shouldn't bother doing that at all. So, what do you say we just go ahead with changing java-defaults? I think it is the best solution that we have for Kfreebsd currently. Sylvestre -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/522a494f.4080...@debian.org
Re: where is eclipse?
On 06/09/13 21:55, Robert Millan wrote: The way I see it, as things stand now it makes a lot more sense to bypass default-jdk in order to get things working... What do you mean by that? To tighten the build-dependencies of eclipse and others, that can't build with gcj? I think the risk is that openjdk-7 could be removed from kfreebsd-* in sid at the request of the maintainer, if we're unable to keep it building+working. We may then lose packages that FTBFS without it (but if we don't change, we'd never have had them in the first place). Other packages should fall back to gcj and still be okay. It may be as much of a problem whichever way we do this. So probably updating java-defaults isn't harmful in itself, and is the easiest thing we can do right now. It also seems like the most thorough way of testing openjdk-7 on kfreebsd-*. Rene Engelhard has been waiting on such a change[0] and Sylvestre Ledru offered to do this for us[1]. [0]: http://lists.debian.org/20130822094156.gi32...@rene-engelhard.de [1]: http://lists.debian.org/520fb6d1.5060...@debian.org It seems we could go ahead without treating this like a transition. I was thinking we may want to ask the Release Team for rebuilds of some already-built packages to use the new java-defaults. Even if that's refused, it's still not a problem. And given the risk of maybe losing openjdk-7 or otherwise having to go back to gcj, maybe we shouldn't bother doing that at all. So, what do you say we just go ahead with changing java-defaults? Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/522a4813.8020...@pyro.eu.org
kfreebsd-kernel-headers_9.2~2_kfreebsd-amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable
Accepted: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.8 Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 21:58:15 +0200 Source: kfreebsd-kernel-headers Binary: kfreebsd-kernel-headers Architecture: source kfreebsd-amd64 Version: 9.2~2 Distribution: unstable Urgency: high Maintainer: GNU/kFreeBSD Maintainers debian-bsd@lists.debian.org Changed-By: Robert Millan r...@debian.org Description: kfreebsd-kernel-headers - kFreeBSD headers for development Changes: kfreebsd-kernel-headers (9.2~2) unstable; urgency=high . * Install sys/rangelock.h (now required by sys/vnode.h) and add header buildability check to testsuite. Checksums-Sha1: 67677d2c485b38a1c308bff9bc8c7d3667c9f5a1 1180 kfreebsd-kernel-headers_9.2~2.dsc 2b0c3a249d283e5c9851c945c37273a168dcbcba 56501 kfreebsd-kernel-headers_9.2~2.tar.gz 5299fe7f411532ae9a352bb2234037e09d230d4e 1236916 kfreebsd-kernel-headers_9.2~2_kfreebsd-amd64.deb Checksums-Sha256: ca155bf23899e9c7cad85a2edb8a129ab15edb977a93c5e1f6ddcb1fab367728 1180 kfreebsd-kernel-headers_9.2~2.dsc 20f50a30b35e640030e2a7427b2454c009a36fd90a691e6b9da4eace3b7af2bf 56501 kfreebsd-kernel-headers_9.2~2.tar.gz f349b2daf6665c9123f959916b6d3f21791acca3f1ed28e18734e11c5bcf586d 1236916 kfreebsd-kernel-headers_9.2~2_kfreebsd-amd64.deb Files: 6b338e690cf6d7d351140288a86cd8f3 1180 kernel standard kfreebsd-kernel-headers_9.2~2.dsc fa0107539a5069c47c229eab2c07bf14 56501 kernel standard kfreebsd-kernel-headers_9.2~2.tar.gz eda298d68b66c0854668f6cbe1590bf1 1236916 kernel standard kfreebsd-kernel-headers_9.2~2_kfreebsd-amd64.deb -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/kFreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlIqNe8ACgkQC19io6rUCv+wXwCbBUe1y4W2K7lsExNNT0mliG3z DDAAn3E+V0DSXhTl5zk7SzdsbNZLodQT =O0Lw -END PGP SIGNATURE- Thank you for your contribution to Debian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1vi3cy-00030i...@franck.debian.org
Re: Re: where is eclipse?
I can't understand very well...the transitions is necessary or not? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1378505806.5602.1.camel@debian
Re: where is eclipse?
On 06/09/13 23:16, Bruno Maximo e Melo wrote: I can't understand very well...the transitions is necessary or not? It's simply a change to the java-defaults package. Seems we will be going ahead with this very soon because the benefits seem to outweigh the risks. After that the next build attempt for eclipse should be successful, and some other packages too. Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/522a5aaa.8080...@pyro.eu.org
Re: where is eclipse?
Steven Chamberlain: It fails to build with our default-jdk. On kfreebsd that is currently gcj, which seems insufficient to build eclipse. So, eclipse could maybe change to a more specific build-depends if that's appropriate, so that openjdk-7-jdk is used, since we do have it. Or otherwise we need to update our default java to openjdk-7 like on other platforms. We can maybe do that, but the maintainer had concerns: http://lists.debian.org/52167a2a.80...@debian.org The way I see it, as things stand now it makes a lot more sense to bypass default-jdk in order to get things working... -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/522a412d.4090...@debian.org
