Bug#611456: Why wishlist?
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 12:56:38PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: Please stop this. The Hurd porters (i.e. we) are responsible for providing acceptable patches, not the Debian maintainer. Thanks Michael. FWIW the main difference between Hurd and FreeBSD here is in the approach taken to submitting patches rather than in the technical details of the patches. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#611456: Why wishlist?
On Sat, 2011-03-19 at 13:14 +, Mark Brown wrote: severity 611456 wishlist kthxbye OK, lets keep is as wishlist as you propose. Will it be hanging around for another three years as bug #468696? On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 11:17:44PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: Why downgrading this bug report to a wishlist? Due to lack of support for multiple cores?? Take a look at the output of x86info for a That's a part of it, yes - you've submitted a partial patch which doesn't implement enough support to work fully on pretty much all modern systems. Does anybody know how the output looks like on kfreebsd system (which is in the architecture list of x86info). At least the postinstall script does not seem to apply to kfreebsd, only to linux. However it is not conditioned as linux only! $ cat debian/postinst #!/bin/sh set -e #DEBHELPER# if [ ! -c /dev/cpu/0/cpuid -a -x /dev/MAKEDEV ]; then (cd /dev ; ./MAKEDEV cpu ) fi GNU/Linux box with dual cores, especially the last lines! This bug is important due to the support of a new architecture and a patch and from what I've learned regarding severity levels it is important! Prove me wrong and I'll concur. Please take a reality check here - the code for this leaf package now compiles but does not fully run on an architecture which isn't exactly likely to be a release candidate in the near future. This doesn't strike me as being the most urgent issue ever. See Michael Bancks reply regarding severity levels. Which are your arguments for kfreebsd, which is one of the supported architectures of x86info? Note that I downgraded the severity to wishlist. This is different to closing the bug. All you're doing by trying to keep the severity of the bug inflated is to annoy me. Under GNU/Linux: ... WARNING: Detected SMP, but unable to access cpuid driver. Used Uniprocessor CPU routines. Results inaccurate. As the output says the program was unable to access the cpuid driver. The cpuid driver requires administrative rights. I've tried with cpuid.ko loaded, and the output was the same (however without the WARMING... message as listed above). Does not seem like the cpuid driver did add anything here (at least for my system). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#611456: Why wishlist?
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 12:48:08PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: On Sat, 2011-03-19 at 13:14 +, Mark Brown wrote: severity 611456 wishlist kthxbye OK, lets keep is as wishlist as you propose. Will it be hanging around for another three years as bug #468696? Please stop this. The Hurd porters (i.e. we) are responsible for providing acceptable patches, not the Debian maintainer. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#611456: Why wishlist?
severity 611456 wishlist kthxbye On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 11:17:44PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: Why downgrading this bug report to a wishlist? Due to lack of support for multiple cores?? Take a look at the output of x86info for a That's a part of it, yes - you've submitted a partial patch which doesn't implement enough support to work fully on pretty much all modern systems. GNU/Linux box with dual cores, especially the last lines! This bug is important due to the support of a new architecture and a patch and from what I've learned regarding severity levels it is important! Prove me wrong and I'll concur. Please take a reality check here - the code for this leaf package now compiles but does not fully run on an architecture which isn't exactly likely to be a release candidate in the near future. This doesn't strike me as being the most urgent issue ever. Which are your arguments for kfreebsd, which is one of the supported architectures of x86info? Note that I downgraded the severity to wishlist. This is different to closing the bug. All you're doing by trying to keep the severity of the bug inflated is to annoy me. Under GNU/Linux: ... WARNING: Detected SMP, but unable to access cpuid driver. Used Uniprocessor CPU routines. Results inaccurate. As the output says the program was unable to access the cpuid driver. The cpuid driver requires administrative rights. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#611456: Why wishlist?
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 01:14:22PM +, Mark Brown wrote: severity 611456 wishlist kthxbye On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 11:17:44PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote: Why downgrading this bug report to a wishlist? Due to lack of support for multiple cores?? Take a look at the output of x86info for a That's a part of it, yes - you've submitted a partial patch which doesn't implement enough support to work fully on pretty much all modern systems. It fixes a FTBFS bug though, which makes important a reasonable severity for this. However, we respect your opinion about this being wishlist for now and will likely ship the x86info package in a seperate repository for your users until the patch is acceptable for inclusion according to your standards. Thanks, Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#611456: Why wishlist?
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 02:49:29PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: It fixes a FTBFS bug though, which makes important a reasonable severity for this. It fails to build from source on an architecture it never claimed to support in the first place... However, we respect your opinion about this being wishlist for now and will likely ship the x86info package in a seperate repository for your users until the patch is acceptable for inclusion according to your standards. When I said I hadn't rejected the patch that's exactly what I meant. If I had no intention at all of applying the patch I'd just have closed the report. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#611456: Why wishlist?
severity 611456 important Why downgrading this bug report to a wishlist? Due to lack of support for multiple cores?? Take a look at the output of x86info for a GNU/Linux box with dual cores, especially the last lines! This bug is important due to the support of a new architecture and a patch and from what I've learned regarding severity levels it is important! Prove me wrong and I'll concur. From: Mark Brown broo...@debian.org To: Michael Banck mba...@debian.org, 468...@bugs.debian.org Subject: Re: Bug#468696: x86info: FTBFS on hurd-i386: not in architecture list Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 10:42:38 + There are several parts of the program which require kernel support to function either at all or reliably, especially on multi-processor and multi-core systems. These provide access to CPUID and MSR information - the former is more important than the latter. Are these features supported on hurd? Which are your arguments for kfreebsd, which is one of the supported architectures of x86info? Under GNU/Linux: x86info v1.25. Dave Jones 2001-2009 Feedback to da...@redhat.com. Found 2 CPUs -- CPU #1 EFamily: 0 EModel: 0 Family: 15 Model: 2 Stepping: 9 CPU Model: Pentium 4 (Northwood) [D1] Processor name string: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.00GHz Type: 0 (Original OEM) Brand: 9 (Intel® Pentium® 4 processor) Number of cores per physical package=1 Number of logical processors per socket=2 Number of logical processors per core=2 APIC ID: 0x0Package: 0 Core: 0 SMT ID 0 -- CPU #2 EFamily: 0 EModel: 0 Family: 15 Model: 2 Stepping: 9 CPU Model: Pentium 4 (Northwood) [D1] Processor name string: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.00GHz Type: 0 (Original OEM) Brand: 9 (Intel® Pentium® 4 processor) Number of cores per physical package=1 Number of logical processors per socket=2 Number of logical processors per core=2 APIC ID: 0x1Package: 0 Core: 0 SMT ID 1 -- WARNING: Detected SMP, but unable to access cpuid driver. Used Uniprocessor CPU routines. Results inaccurate. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
