Re: please remove kfreebsd-any from Architecture
On 30/05/14 18:32, Jérôme Vouillon wrote: Hi, On 30/05/2014 17:57, Steven Chamberlain wrote: On 16:01, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: Just a reminder: there are still various things depending on the removed packages, preventing things from migrating to testing. Do you agree it's just the two metapackages from src:meta-gnome3 that need changes, or is there anything else? http://lists.debian.org/53863f46.2050...@pyro.eu.org Indeed, this is the only issue. task-gnome-desktop depends on gnome-core, but this will not prevent the migration. Indeed. Unless something has changed, only broken (linux-)i386 dependencies prevent migration. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5389d644.4090...@debian.org
Re: please remove kfreebsd-any from Architecture
On 31/05/14 00:42, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: On 30/05/14 17:57, Steven Chamberlain wrote: Hi Emilio, On 16:01, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: Just a reminder: there are still various things depending on the removed packages, preventing things from migrating to testing. Do you agree it's just the two metapackages from src:meta-gnome3 that need changes, or is there anything else? http://lists.debian.org/53863f46.2050...@pyro.eu.org There's that and also #749888. Do you plan an upload for #749888 anytime soon? If not, I'll prepare an NMU. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5389d9bf.4090...@debian.org
Re: gnome-terminal: FTBFS on kfreebsd hurd archs
Hi, I find it very strange that a terminal application needs gnome-shell. There are dozens of terminal applications, and so far they seem to manage without dragging their own desktop environment of choice with them. Which makes me wonder: Does gnome-terminal actually work without gnome-shell? Is this setup properly tested and supported by upstream? In other words, does upstream release procedure account for the possibility that one might want to use gnome-terminal without gnome-shell, and do their QA procedures ensure that the resulting package will be usable? I fully expect a yes as answer. If that's not the case, then I think it'd be much better to change Architecture field instead so that it's only built on archs where it's actually supported. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5389dc76.7080...@debian.org
Re: gnome-terminal: FTBFS on kfreebsd hurd archs
On 31/05/14 17:51, Andreas Henriksson wrote: Maybe you should try to spend 2 seconds on trying to figure it out (ie. by searching the package changelog) before posting in the future. Why? -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5389fbc0.6060...@debian.org
Re: gnome-terminal: FTBFS on kfreebsd hurd archs
Please accept my apologies. Apparently my previous mail wasn't clear enough for everyone. So please allow me to ellaborate: The text had a statement and some questions. One can tell them appart because questions end with a '?' sign, and statements don't. The questions are what I'd really like to know, whereas the statement merely acts as an introduction. This is not a question: I find it very strange that a terminal application needs gnome-shell. There are dozens of terminal applications, and so far they seem to manage without dragging their own desktop environment of choice with them. I don't expect an answer on this, and I'm not asking anyone to research this. I could have researched it myself, but I don't have a special interest in the answer per se, only about its implications (see below). These are questions: Which makes me wonder: Does gnome-terminal actually work without gnome-shell? Is this setup properly tested and supported by upstream? In other words, does upstream release procedure account for the possibility that one might want to use gnome-terminal without gnome-shell, and do their QA procedures ensure that the resulting package will be usable? Unfortunately I cannot answer them myself, because I'm not familiar with GNOME development procedures, nor with the implied commitments that come with them. It would be very nice if the GNOME maintainers can cast some light on this. Thanks in advance, -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/538a003a.9020...@debian.org
Re: gnome-terminal: FTBFS on kfreebsd hurd archs
On 31/05/14 18:22, Pino Toscano wrote: Attached a first version of patch for it; the changes to control.in and rules should be fine, while most probably the .install files could need few tricks (since gnome-terminal-search-provider.ini is not installed). GNOME team: if you could help on this, that would be great. Thank you. Do you plan to upload this? Still, would be nice to obtain an answer from GNOME team. The gnome-shell-gdm3 dependency was supposed to be optional too, until it wasn't. Judging from their previous response [1] I suspect they are reluctant to provide support for non-standard configurations. But of course, and explicit answer will be much better than speculation. Clearly, if non-standard configurations are the way to go, they're supposed to be supported by either upstream or Debian maintainers. [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=735023#10 -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/538a079e.8050...@debian.org
Re: gnome-terminal: FTBFS on kfreebsd hurd archs
On 31/05/14 18:40, Cyril Brulebois wrote: IMVHO -release@ doesn't need to know about what happens to every single package. Feel free to keep that kind of Q A between maintainers and porters. I was under the impression that -release was overseeing the QA requirements for Jessie are being satisfied when it comes to GNOME on non-Linux ports. I take note that's no longer the case and will drop the list from CC in future mails regarding this issue. Apologies for any inconvenience this missunderstanding may have caused. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/538a084e.5020...@debian.org
Re: heads up: work needed on upower?
On 22/05/14 11:38, Andreas Henriksson wrote: [...] Support for non-Linux OSes -- The new policy decision for low batteries is not implemented on the non-Linux systems that have backends in UPower, namely FreeBSD and OpenBSD. As legacy code in UPower used to do this for those systems, it should be fairly straight forward to copy/paste from UPower 0.9 to bring back hibernation in those systems. PowerOff might be a little bit more work. [...] This was quite a while ago and I don't know how things looks today on the bsd front here... Possibly this is still an opportunity for some more work. Hi Andreas, In general, if upstream wants to make a component Linux-specific, it is very hard for us to fight it. As porters we can assist on fixing portability problems, but swimming against the upstream flow is an entirely different matter. We've just got rid of GDM3 (and with it, GNOME user interface) for this very reason. That said, if as UPower maintainer you're so inclined, it might be possible to sustain non-Linux support by putting each new UPower release on hold until development of kernel-specific extensions is complete for that release. However I admit this might break the schedule for UPower releases and thus not be a feasible solution from the perspective of UPower maintenance. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/537dfc2d.4030...@debian.org
Re: heads up: work needed on upower?
On 22/05/14 17:20, Andreas Henriksson wrote: make[6]: Entering directory `/«PKGBUILDDIR»/src/freebsd' CC libupshared_la-up-acpi-native.lo CC libupshared_la-up-backend.lo In file included from up-backend.c:27:0: /usr/include/kvm.h:82:1: error: unknown type name 'uint64_t' uint64_t kvm_counter_u64_fetch(kvm_t *, u_long); ^ up-backend.c:323:1: warning: no previous declaration for 'up_backend_get_used_swap' [-Wmissing-declarations] up_backend_get_used_swap (UpBackend *backend) ^ make[6]: *** [libupshared_la-up-backend.lo] Error 1 Looks like a missing #include stdint.h or something like that, no? Yes. This is a typical porting issue (uintXX_t types are defined by sys/types.h on FreeBSD, so their code often doesn't include stdint.h). -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/537e2352.2040...@debian.org
Re: heads up: work needed on upower?
On 22/05/14 19:37, Andreas Henriksson wrote: On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 06:18:26PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: Yes. This is a typical porting issue (uintXX_t types are defined by sys/types.h on FreeBSD, so their code often doesn't include stdint.h). Thanks for this information... but again I'm not sure what you're saying. We're talking about /usr/include/kvm.h here.. their code ? Uhm yes, that's a bug in libkvm alright. Just fixed in 10.0-6. Thanks! -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/537e547a.4080...@debian.org
Depends on gdm3 make it Linux-specific
Package: xfswitch-plugin Version: 0.0.1-4 Hi, This package Depends on gdm3 which has been Linux-specific for many years, and as of 3.8.4-8.1 no longer builds on any non-Linux architecture. Is gdm3 really the only way to use xfswitch-plugin? If that is so, please adjust the Architecture field in this package, so that it isn't provided as an uninstallable on non-Linux ports. Many thanks -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53726eee.40...@debian.org
Re: please remove kfreebsd-any from Architecture
On 04/05/14 13:40, Robert Millan wrote:
Please could you remove kfreebsd-any from Architecture in gnome-shell ?
You may close the following RC bugs when doing this:
#733122
#735023
A patch is attached for your convenience.
Hi,
I've uploaded an NMU with the removal of kfreebsd-any (and hurd-any
as per porter's request) from Architecture. A debdiff is attached.
Best regards
--
Robert Millan
diff -Nru gnome-shell-3.8.4/debian/changelog gnome-shell-3.8.4/debian/changelog
--- gnome-shell-3.8.4/debian/changelog 2014-04-04 01:10:15.0 +0200
+++ gnome-shell-3.8.4/debian/changelog 2014-05-11 13:41:52.0 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,11 @@
+gnome-shell (3.8.4-8.1) unstable; urgency=medium
+
+ * Non-maintainer upload.
+ * Remove kfreebsd-any and hurd-any from Architecture. (Closes:
+#733122, #735023)
+
+ -- Robert Millan r...@debian.org Sun, 11 May 2014 13:41:02 +0200
+
gnome-shell (3.8.4-8) unstable; urgency=medium
* debian/patches/45-fix-gi-annotations.patch:
diff -Nru gnome-shell-3.8.4/debian/control gnome-shell-3.8.4/debian/control
--- gnome-shell-3.8.4/debian/control 2014-04-04 01:23:56.0 +0200
+++ gnome-shell-3.8.4/debian/control 2014-05-11 15:46:11.0 +0200
@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@
Vcs-Browser: http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/pkg-gnome/desktop/unstable/gnome-shell/
Package: gnome-shell
-Architecture: any
+Architecture: linux-any
Depends: ${gir:Depends},
${icon-theme:Depends},
${misc:Depends},
@@ -125,7 +125,7 @@
This package contains translations and data files for the GNOME shell.
Package: gnome-shell-dbg
-Architecture: any
+Architecture: linux-any
Section: debug
Priority: extra
Depends: ${misc:Depends},
diff -Nru gnome-shell-3.8.4/debian/control.in gnome-shell-3.8.4/debian/control.in
--- gnome-shell-3.8.4/debian/control.in 2014-04-02 17:00:00.0 +0200
+++ gnome-shell-3.8.4/debian/control.in 2014-05-11 13:40:16.0 +0200
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@
Vcs-Browser: http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/pkg-gnome/desktop/unstable/gnome-shell/
Package: gnome-shell
-Architecture: any
+Architecture: linux-any
Depends: ${gir:Depends},
${icon-theme:Depends},
${misc:Depends},
@@ -120,7 +120,7 @@
This package contains translations and data files for the GNOME shell.
Package: gnome-shell-dbg
-Architecture: any
+Architecture: linux-any
Section: debug
Priority: extra
Depends: ${misc:Depends},
Re: please remove kfreebsd-any from Architecture
On 04/05/14 13:33, Robert Millan wrote:
Please could you remove kfreebsd-any from Architecture in gdm3 ?
You may close the following RC bugs when doing this:
#602724
#601106
#612157
#733546
A patch is attached for your convenience.
Hi,
I've uploaded an NMU with the removal of kfreebsd-any from
Architecture. A debdiff is attached.
Best regards
--
Robert Millan
diff -Nru gdm3-3.8.4/debian/changelog gdm3-3.8.4/debian/changelog
--- gdm3-3.8.4/debian/changelog 2014-05-10 22:58:12.0 +0200
+++ gdm3-3.8.4/debian/changelog 2014-05-11 13:25:32.0 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,11 @@
+gdm3 (3.8.4-8.1) unstable; urgency=medium
+
+ * Non-maintainer upload.
+ * Remove kfreebsd-any from Architecture. (Closes: #602724, #601106,
+#612157, #733546)
+
+ -- Robert Millan r...@debian.org Sun, 11 May 2014 13:25:16 +0200
+
gdm3 (3.8.4-8) unstable; urgency=medium
* debian/control.in: Depends against consolekit on non-linux architectures
diff -Nru gdm3-3.8.4/debian/control gdm3-3.8.4/debian/control
--- gdm3-3.8.4/debian/control 2014-05-10 22:59:49.0 +0200
+++ gdm3-3.8.4/debian/control 2014-05-11 14:33:05.0 +0200
@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@
Vcs-Browser: http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/pkg-gnome/desktop/unstable/gdm3/
Package: gdm3
-Architecture: linux-any kfreebsd-any
+Architecture: linux-any
Pre-Depends: ${misc:Pre-Depends}
Depends: ${shlibs:Depends},
${misc:Depends},
@@ -111,7 +111,7 @@
Package: libgdm1
Section: libs
-Architecture: linux-any kfreebsd-any
+Architecture: linux-any
Pre-Depends: ${misc:Pre-Depends}
Depends: ${shlibs:Depends},
${misc:Depends},
@@ -134,7 +134,7 @@
Package: libgdm-dev
Section: libdevel
-Architecture: linux-any kfreebsd-any
+Architecture: linux-any
Pre-Depends: ${misc:Pre-Depends}
Depends: libgdm1 (= ${binary:Version}),
gir1.2-gdm3 (= ${binary:Version}),
@@ -156,7 +156,7 @@
Package: gir1.2-gdm3
Section: introspection
-Architecture: linux-any kfreebsd-any
+Architecture: linux-any
Depends: ${gir:Depends},
${shlibs:Depends},
${misc:Depends}
diff -Nru gdm3-3.8.4/debian/control.in gdm3-3.8.4/debian/control.in
--- gdm3-3.8.4/debian/control.in 2014-05-10 22:56:16.0 +0200
+++ gdm3-3.8.4/debian/control.in 2014-05-11 13:26:08.0 +0200
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@
Vcs-Browser: http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/pkg-gnome/desktop/unstable/gdm3/
Package: gdm3
-Architecture: linux-any kfreebsd-any
+Architecture: linux-any
Pre-Depends: ${misc:Pre-Depends}
Depends: ${shlibs:Depends},
${misc:Depends},
@@ -106,7 +106,7 @@
Package: libgdm1
Section: libs
-Architecture: linux-any kfreebsd-any
+Architecture: linux-any
Pre-Depends: ${misc:Pre-Depends}
Depends: ${shlibs:Depends},
${misc:Depends},
@@ -129,7 +129,7 @@
Package: libgdm-dev
Section: libdevel
-Architecture: linux-any kfreebsd-any
+Architecture: linux-any
Pre-Depends: ${misc:Pre-Depends}
Depends: libgdm1 (= ${binary:Version}),
gir1.2-gdm3 (= ${binary:Version}),
@@ -151,7 +151,7 @@
Package: gir1.2-gdm3
Section: introspection
-Architecture: linux-any kfreebsd-any
+Architecture: linux-any
Depends: ${gir:Depends},
${shlibs:Depends},
${misc:Depends}
RM: gnome-shell [kfreebsd-i386 kfreebsd-amd64 hurd-i386] -- ANAIS; Linux-specific package
Package: ftp.debian.org Severity: normal Hi, This package is Linux-specific (and as of 3.8.4-8.1 properly marked as such). Please could remove associated binaries from the archive? You may close the following RC bugs when doing so: #733122 #735023 Thanks! -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/536fa096.8010...@debian.org
RM: gdm3 [kfreebsd-i386 kfreebsd-amd64] -- ANAIS; Linux-specific package
Package: ftp.debian.org Severity: normal Hi, This package is Linux-specific (and as of 3.8.4-8.1 properly marked as such). Please could remove associated binaries from the archive? You may close the following RC bugs when doing so: #602724 #601106 #612157 #733546 Thanks! -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/536fa09b.3030...@debian.org
Re: please remove kfreebsd-any from Architecture
On 11/05/14 21:06, Julien Cristau wrote: On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 17:37:29 +0200, Robert Millan wrote: I've uploaded an NMU with the removal of kfreebsd-any (and hurd-any as per porter's request) from Architecture. A debdiff is attached. Do you plan on also handling the reverse dependencies (with binary removals and/or patches, as appropriate)? That's something I'm responsible for. Thanks for the reminder. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/536fe532.3050...@debian.org
please remove kfreebsd-any from Architecture
Please could you remove kfreebsd-any from Architecture in gdm3 ?
You may close the following RC bugs when doing this:
#602724
#601106
#612157
#733546
A patch is attached for your convenience.
Thanks!
--
Robert Millan
diff -ur gdm3-3.8.4.old/debian/control gdm3-3.8.4/debian/control
--- gdm3-3.8.4.old/debian/control 2013-11-14 12:36:31.0 +0100
+++ gdm3-3.8.4/debian/control 2014-05-04 12:54:02.222074385 +0200
@@ -52,7 +52,7 @@
Vcs-Browser: http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/pkg-gnome/desktop/unstable/gdm3/
Package: gdm3
-Architecture: linux-any kfreebsd-any
+Architecture: linux-any
Pre-Depends: ${misc:Pre-Depends}
Depends: ${shlibs:Depends},
${misc:Depends},
@@ -107,7 +107,7 @@
Package: libgdm1
Section: libs
-Architecture: linux-any kfreebsd-any
+Architecture: linux-any
Pre-Depends: ${misc:Pre-Depends}
Depends: ${shlibs:Depends},
${misc:Depends},
@@ -130,7 +130,7 @@
Package: libgdm-dev
Section: libdevel
-Architecture: linux-any kfreebsd-any
+Architecture: linux-any
Pre-Depends: ${misc:Pre-Depends}
Depends: libgdm1 (= ${binary:Version}),
gir1.2-gdm3 (= ${binary:Version}),
@@ -152,7 +152,7 @@
Package: gir1.2-gdm3
Section: introspection
-Architecture: linux-any kfreebsd-any
+Architecture: linux-any
Depends: ${gir:Depends},
${shlibs:Depends},
${misc:Depends}
diff -ur gdm3-3.8.4.old/debian/control.in gdm3-3.8.4/debian/control.in
--- gdm3-3.8.4.old/debian/control.in 2013-11-14 12:29:43.0 +0100
+++ gdm3-3.8.4/debian/control.in 2014-05-04 12:51:04.082069496 +0200
@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@
Vcs-Browser: http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/pkg-gnome/desktop/unstable/gdm3/
Package: gdm3
-Architecture: linux-any kfreebsd-any
+Architecture: linux-any
Pre-Depends: ${misc:Pre-Depends}
Depends: ${shlibs:Depends},
${misc:Depends},
@@ -102,7 +102,7 @@
Package: libgdm1
Section: libs
-Architecture: linux-any kfreebsd-any
+Architecture: linux-any
Pre-Depends: ${misc:Pre-Depends}
Depends: ${shlibs:Depends},
${misc:Depends},
@@ -125,7 +125,7 @@
Package: libgdm-dev
Section: libdevel
-Architecture: linux-any kfreebsd-any
+Architecture: linux-any
Pre-Depends: ${misc:Pre-Depends}
Depends: libgdm1 (= ${binary:Version}),
gir1.2-gdm3 (= ${binary:Version}),
@@ -147,7 +147,7 @@
Package: gir1.2-gdm3
Section: introspection
-Architecture: linux-any kfreebsd-any
+Architecture: linux-any
Depends: ${gir:Depends},
${shlibs:Depends},
${misc:Depends}
please remove kfreebsd-any from Architecture
Please could you remove kfreebsd-any from Architecture in gnome-shell ?
You may close the following RC bugs when doing this:
#733122
#735023
A patch is attached for your convenience.
Thanks!
--
Robert Millan
diff -ur gnome-shell-3.8.4.old/debian/control gnome-shell-3.8.4/debian/control
--- gnome-shell-3.8.4.old/debian/control 2014-04-04 01:23:56.0 +0200
+++ gnome-shell-3.8.4/debian/control 2014-05-04 13:36:34.962144547 +0200
@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@
Vcs-Browser: http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/pkg-gnome/desktop/unstable/gnome-shell/
Package: gnome-shell
-Architecture: any
+Architecture: linux-any hurd-any
Depends: ${gir:Depends},
${icon-theme:Depends},
${misc:Depends},
@@ -125,7 +125,7 @@
This package contains translations and data files for the GNOME shell.
Package: gnome-shell-dbg
-Architecture: any
+Architecture: linux-any hurd-any
Section: debug
Priority: extra
Depends: ${misc:Depends},
diff -ur gnome-shell-3.8.4.old/debian/control.in gnome-shell-3.8.4/debian/control.in
--- gnome-shell-3.8.4.old/debian/control.in 2014-04-02 17:00:00.0 +0200
+++ gnome-shell-3.8.4/debian/control.in 2014-05-04 13:36:53.426145054 +0200
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@
Vcs-Browser: http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/pkg-gnome/desktop/unstable/gnome-shell/
Package: gnome-shell
-Architecture: any
+Architecture: linux-any hurd-any
Depends: ${gir:Depends},
${icon-theme:Depends},
${misc:Depends},
@@ -120,7 +120,7 @@
This package contains translations and data files for the GNOME shell.
Package: gnome-shell-dbg
-Architecture: any
+Architecture: linux-any hurd-any
Section: debug
Priority: extra
Depends: ${misc:Depends},
Re: Bits from the Release Team: Architecture health check
On 12/03/2014 19:04, Niels Thykier wrote:
As I read/understand the above, you basically say (something along the
lines of):
The Debian kFreeBSD porters will not support packages, where upstream
have no (visible) interest/intention of being portable (beyond
${OS}-any) nor their reverse dependencies. Examples of these include
(but are not limited to) systemd and GNOME (via GDM).
It is not that I want to change your wording or anything. I just wanted
to make sure I had captured the important parts of it.
I don't think it's possible to put this in generic wording. There are specific
reasons why GNOME can't be considered a portable program. I think they're enough
well-known so that I shouldn't need to publicize them.
--
Robert Millan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5320d8d4.2080...@debian.org
Re: Bits from the Release Team: Architecture health check
On 29/01/2014 23:03, Niels Thykier wrote: I believe this is a first for us (as well) - at the very least, I won't claim to have all the answers. Anyhow, as I see it, we want you to choose a set of supported packages, then we will probably ask how / why you made that choice and, quite possibly, poke a bit at making you choosing a slightly larger set etc. Hi Niels, After some discussion we've reached the following position statement, which has the approval of Steven, Petr and myself: ~~~ It is with much regret that we observe that GDM has grown hard dependencies on a Linux-specific component (systemd). Although GDM still offers the possibility of running it using ConsoleKit, this codepath is no longer supported by upstream, and ConsoleKit itself is considered deprecated software and has been abandoned by its developers. Furthermore, we observe that the GNOME UI has grown hard dependencies on GDM, as well as other developments which make it impractical to run GNOME on kernels other than Linux. Our understanding is that GNOME release managers don't see this as a problem and are not actively trying to resolve this. In this situation we do not think it's reasonably practical for us to continue providing assistance to ensure portability of the GNOME desktop on GNU/kFreeBSD. When it comes to individual applications, we'd like to support as many of them as possible. As long as they are still intended to be portable by their upstream developers, and that they don't have any hard dependency on the GNOME desktop itself (i.e., they can be run as standalone apps), we intend to continue providing porting assistance for them. ~~~ -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5304dcb3.5000...@debian.org
Re: Bits from the Release Team: Architecture health check
On 19/02/2014 16:45, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Robert Millan r...@debian.org (2014-02-19): After some discussion we've reached the following position statement, which has the approval of Steven, Petr and myself: ~~~ It is with much regret that we observe that GDM has grown hard dependencies on a Linux-specific component (systemd). Although GDM still offers the possibility of running it using ConsoleKit, this codepath is no longer supported by upstream, and ConsoleKit itself is considered deprecated software and has been abandoned by its developers. Furthermore, we observe that the GNOME UI has grown hard dependencies on GDM, as well as other developments which make it impractical to run GNOME on kernels other than Linux. Our understanding is that GNOME release managers don't see this as a problem and are not actively trying to resolve this. In this situation we do not think it's reasonably practical for us to continue providing assistance to ensure portability of the GNOME desktop on GNU/kFreeBSD. When it comes to individual applications, we'd like to support as many of them as possible. As long as they are still intended to be portable by their upstream developers, and that they don't have any hard dependency on the GNOME desktop itself (i.e., they can be run as standalone apps), we intend to continue providing porting assistance for them. ~~~ I thought this might be of some interest: http://blogs.gnome.org/mclasen/2014/02/19/on-portability/ Skillful talk and some screenshots may be useful to persuade people, but alas, it has no effect whatsoever on the actual problem. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/53050f95.8030...@debian.org
Re: Bug#730833: u-boot: FTBFS on kfreebsd
On 18/02/2014 21:54, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 09:35:09PM +, Robert Millan wrote: On 18/02/2014 19:11, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: Looking for help from the *bsd porters on this... We haven't seen a successful build of u-boot on kfreebsd since mid-2012... The short of it is a bunch of header files that aren't present on Debian GNU/kFreeBSD are required for building u-boot-tools. Upstream u-boot has essentially copied a bunch of header files from linux sources. The current best patch we have is to copy *more* header files, but this seems like a bad idea... Droppping u-boot-tools on kfreebsd-* would be a regression from wheezy. Are you sure u-boot is supposed to build on anything other than Linux? The kind of software package that embeds copies of Linux headers is not generally intended to be portable... Well, u-boot-tools could technically be useable on any architecture. Is it actually useful? Quite possibly not. If the best thing is to drop non-linux architectures, I'd be fine with that. I don't want to drop architectures from the packaging without asking porters first. I think if upstream doesn't consider it a bug to copy non-portable declarations from Linux headers, it's probably reasonable to consider u-boot as Linux-specific software. Attempting to fight this kind of trend is tends to be very costly, but ultimately it's your call as maintainer to decide whether it's worth it. We can provide assistance if necessary. In this case, my advice would be to figure out why are those headers being copied in, since this seems to be the root of the problem. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5303ea81.5030...@debian.org
Re: Bits from the Release Team: Architecture health check
On 16/02/2014 08:49, Niels Thykier wrote: I believe Robert concluded that it was possible to use an alternative to gdm3 (I forgot if it was lightdm or xdm). Well, not exactly. I think we're at a cross-roads. My understanding is that this used to be possible until now, but the GNOME maintainers are already unhappy with this possibility and in any case upstream will gradually move further in the opposite direction. Nevertheless, it would require that the GNOME maintainers are willing to adopt and support that change. It used to be that any login manager was able to interact with any X session through a very simple interface. These were the good old days, in which users could mix things up and customize their environment to their will. But they're gone when it comes to GDM and GNOME. It seems to me that in GNOME land the UNIX mantra of do one thing and do it well is being replaced by monolithic culture. I think this is a poor approach to system design, but as I don't use GNOME myself and GNU/kFreeBSD users have plenty of alternatives, I don't mean to argue with anyone about it (neither GNOME upstream, nor the Debian GNOME maintainers). -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5300b045.7030...@debian.org
Re: Bits from the Release Team: Architecture health check
On 12/02/2014 20:06, Niels Thykier wrote: As I see it, there are two concrete problems with the (number of) supported packages. First, the number of packages actually built on kFreeBSD is just shy of 90%, whereas most other release architectures are at 96%[1]. Here kFreeBSD has increased in the past quarter from ~89.5% to almost, but not quite 90%. The release architecture criteria [1] says the target is 98% but hardware-specific packages are excluded. Does this apply to kernel ports by simply replacing hardware-specific with kernel-specific? [1] https://release.debian.org/jessie/arch_policy.html Secondly, there are cases like GDM, where a single unsupported package have rather long reaching consequences. In the concrete example, GNOME (via gnome-core) strictly depends on gdm3, meaning that if gdm3 goes, (more or less) all of gnome goes with it[2]. That in turn means that task-gnome-desktop cannot be installed on kFreeBSD (I presume this will at least affect d-i). Here we need you to assess what can you reasonably support. Once we know that we can look at the consequences and how to deal with them. By the way, when you present your set of supported packages, please consider highlighting where you would like the default package set to be different from current release architectures. E.g. with the TC's decision on init systems, Linux will be using systemd as default init system[3]. I presume kFreeBSD will go with a different init system. Thanks. We'll discuss this among ourselves and present a proposal. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52fd511d.8010...@debian.org
Bug#728919: freebsd-libs transition
Unless I missed something, only two packages remain. And the maintainers haven't responded so far. What would be a suitable delay for delayed-queue NMUs? -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52f2b30e.9070...@debian.org
Re: Bug#708697: not fixed (udev dependency now causing FTBFS)
On 01/02/2014 19:42, Steven Chamberlain wrote: Control: forcemerge 708697 736608 Ah, I filed a duplicate bug for this by mistake, and already submitted a patch: http://bugs.debian.org/736608 My bad... A. Maitland, please use Steven's patch, it is more complete than mine. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52efa11d.9060...@debian.org
not fixed (udev dependency now causing FTBFS)
Control: notfixed -1 4.1-1
Control: tag -1 patch
Control: block 728919 with -1
Hi,
The dependency of qthid-fcd-controller on udev is not gratuitous. It's no use to
put the B-D in libudev in [linux-any] filter and demote the Depends to
Recommends
because the code attempts to use libudev unconditionally (see qthid.pro and
hidraw.c).
Here's a patch which fixes the build problem by reverting the old behaviour on
non-Linux platforms.
Note: please respond as soon as possible, as this problem blocks the
freebsd-libs
transition.
Thanks!
--
Robert Millan
diff -ur qthid-fcd-controller-4.1/qthid.pro qthid-fcd-controller-4.1.new/qthid.pro
--- qthid-fcd-controller-4.1/qthid.pro 2014-02-01 14:53:42.0 +0100
+++ qthid-fcd-controller-4.1.new/qthid.pro 2014-02-01 14:52:12.989040881 +0100
@@ -60,11 +60,12 @@
# libusb-1.0 on Linux uses pkg-config
linux-g++|linux-g++-64 {
-#CONFIG += link_pkgconfig
-#PKGCONFIG += libusb-1.0
-#SOURCES += hid-libusb.c
LIBS += -ludev
SOURCES += hidraw.c
+} else {
+CONFIG += link_pkgconfig
+PKGCONFIG += libusb-1.0
+SOURCES += hid-libusb.c
}
RESOURCES += \
Re: Bits from the Release Team: Architecture health check
On 30/01/2014 00:03, Niels Thykier wrote: @Robert: Re your Could you elaborate?. I haven't forgotten it, but I out of time - so I will get back to you on that. It's ok. I wanted more detail both on the problem and on the solution. You just provided the second, which I believe is the most important. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52ea6e74.9040...@debian.org
Re: Bits from the Release Team: Architecture health check
On 30/01/2014 08:15, Raphael Hertzog wrote: So the console kit path seems like the only option so far (unless someone ports logind to use some other freebsd technology). I'm not an expert on session or console management, but seeing how XDM has managed to work without consolekit for the last 25 years, I have a hard time believing either consolekit or logind are the only option if you want to implement a display manager. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52ea6de9.60...@debian.org
Re: Bits from the Release Team: Architecture health check
Hi Niels, On 29/01/2014 19:41, Niels Thykier wrote: * kfreebsd-amd64 and kfreebsd-i386 - On one hand, we are unconvinced that kFreeBSD will be able to be on par with other release architectures in terms of supported packages for Jessie. - On the other hand, we believe kFreeBSD could be improved by reducing the scope of the port for Jessie. Could you elaborate? I.e. what is the problem and what solution you have in mind. - Therefore, we would like to invite the kFreeBSD porters to a dialogue to determine the scope of kFreeBSD for Jessie. Sure. This is much needed IMHO. Please let us know what you think. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52e97c81.8020...@debian.org
Re: Bits from the Release Team: Architecture health check
On 29/01/2014 23:24, Steven Chamberlain wrote: If some packages (potentially the whole GNOME desktop environment) get a hard systemd dependency that would somewhat reduce the scope of the port for us I think. From what I can see in previous TC discussion, it seems that the plan is for sysvinit support to remain mandatory (but deprecated) for one more release cycle. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52e98365.6050...@debian.org
Bug#736846: pu: package kfreebsd-9/9.0-10+deb70.6
Package: release.debian.org
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
Severity: normal
Hi,
Please can we have your permission to update kfreebsd-9 in wheezy?
-10+deb70.6 fixes a security problem and two other grave bugs:
kfreebsd-9 (9.0-10+deb70.6) stable; urgency=low
* Disable VIA hardware RNG by default. Use hw.nehemiah_rng_enable
sysctl to re-enable (but read about the security implications
first). (Closes: #735448)
* Apply upstream EN-14_02.mmap patch.
* Fix lseek ENXIO error condition with ZFS. (Closes: #736198)
-- Robert Millan r...@debian.org Mon, 27 Jan 2014 16:16:28 +0100
debdiff is attached.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: jessie/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: kfreebsd-amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: kfreebsd-i386
Kernel: kFreeBSD 9.0-2-amd64
Locale: LANG=ca_AD.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=ca_AD.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
diff -Nru kfreebsd-9-9.0/debian/changelog kfreebsd-9-9.0/debian/changelog
--- kfreebsd-9-9.0/debian/changelog 2013-10-10 00:14:43.0 +0200
+++ kfreebsd-9-9.0/debian/changelog 2014-01-27 16:16:29.0 +0100
@@ -1,3 +1,13 @@
+kfreebsd-9 (9.0-10+deb70.6) stable; urgency=low
+
+ * Disable VIA hardware RNG by default. Use hw.nehemiah_rng_enable
+sysctl to re-enable (but read about the security implications
+first). (Closes: #735448)
+ * Apply upstream EN-14_02.mmap patch.
+ * Fix lseek ENXIO error condition with ZFS. (Closes: #736198)
+
+ -- Robert Millan r...@debian.org Mon, 27 Jan 2014 16:16:28 +0100
+
kfreebsd-9 (9.0-10+deb70.5) stable; urgency=low
* Disable 101_nullfs_vsock.diff. (Closes: #71)
diff -Nru kfreebsd-9-9.0/debian/patches/disable_via_rng.diff
kfreebsd-9-9.0/debian/patches/disable_via_rng.diff
--- kfreebsd-9-9.0/debian/patches/disable_via_rng.diff 1970-01-01
01:00:00.0 +0100
+++ kfreebsd-9-9.0/debian/patches/disable_via_rng.diff 2014-01-27
16:15:56.0 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+Description:
+ Disable VIA hardware RNG by default due to unsafe usage. Implement a
+ loader tunable allowing to turn it back on.
+ .
+ Minimal patch based on upstream SVN r240950 and r260644
+Origin: backports, commit:240950, commit:260644
+Forwarded: not-needed
+Bug-Debian: http://bugs.debian.org/735448
+
+Index: kfreebsd-9-9.0/sys/dev/random/probe.c
+===
+--- kfreebsd-9-9.0.orig/sys/dev/random/probe.c 2006-07-13 11:47:36.0
+
kfreebsd-9-9.0/sys/dev/random/probe.c 2014-01-26 16:41:27.538080382
+
+@@ -30,6 +30,8 @@
+
+ #include sys/types.h
+ #include sys/param.h
++#include sys/systm.h
++#include sys/kernel.h
+ #include sys/malloc.h
+ #include sys/random.h
+ #include sys/selinfo.h
+@@ -57,7 +59,12 @@
+ /* Then go looking for hardware */
+ #if defined(__i386__) !defined(PC98)
+ if (via_feature_rng VIA_HAS_RNG) {
+- *systat = random_nehemiah;
++ int enable;
++
++ enable = 0;
++ TUNABLE_INT_FETCH(hw.nehemiah_rng_enable, enable);
++ if (enable)
++ *systat = random_nehemiah;
+ }
+ #endif
+ }
diff -Nru kfreebsd-9-9.0/debian/patches/EN-14_02.mmap.patch
kfreebsd-9-9.0/debian/patches/EN-14_02.mmap.patch
--- kfreebsd-9-9.0/debian/patches/EN-14_02.mmap.patch 1970-01-01
01:00:00.0 +0100
+++ kfreebsd-9-9.0/debian/patches/EN-14_02.mmap.patch 2014-01-22
22:58:39.0 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+
+From http://security.freebsd.org/patches/EN-14:02/mmap.patch
+
+--- a/sys/vm/vm_map.c
b/sys/vm/vm_map.c
+@@ -1232,6 +1232,7 @@
+ }
+ else if ((prev_entry != map-header)
+(prev_entry-eflags == protoeflags)
++ (cow (MAP_ENTRY_GROWS_DOWN | MAP_ENTRY_GROWS_UP)) == 0
+(prev_entry-end == start)
+(prev_entry-wired_count == 0)
+(prev_entry-cred == cred ||
+@@ -3199,7 +3200,6 @@
+* NOTE: We explicitly allow bi-directional stacks.
+*/
+ orient = cow (MAP_STACK_GROWS_DOWN|MAP_STACK_GROWS_UP);
+- cow = ~orient;
+ KASSERT(orient != 0, (No stack grow direction));
+
+ if (addrbos vm_map_min(map) ||
diff -Nru kfreebsd-9-9.0/debian/patches/fix_lseek_zfs.diff
kfreebsd-9-9.0/debian/patches/fix_lseek_zfs.diff
--- kfreebsd-9-9.0/debian/patches/fix_lseek_zfs.diff1970-01-01
01:00:00.0 +0100
+++ kfreebsd-9-9.0/debian/patches/fix_lseek_zfs.diff2014-01-22
23:18:27.0 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+
+http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=164445
+
+http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/233918
+
+--- a/sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/zfs_vnops.c
b/sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/zfs_vnops.c
+@@ -293,9 +293,12 @@
+
+ case _FIO_SEEK_DATA:
+ case _FIO_SEEK_HOLE:
++#ifdef sun
+ if (ddi_copyin((void *)data, off, sizeof (off
Bug#736846: pu: package kfreebsd-9/9.0-10+deb70.6
On 27/01/2014 17:25, Adam D. Barratt wrote: Control: tags -1 + wheezy moreinfo On 2014-01-27 15:32, Robert Millan wrote: Please can we have your permission to update kfreebsd-9 in wheezy? -10+deb70.6 fixes a security problem and two other grave bugs: kfreebsd-9 (9.0-10+deb70.6) stable; urgency=low * Disable VIA hardware RNG by default. Use hw.nehemiah_rng_enable sysctl to re-enable (but read about the security implications first). (Closes: #735448) ^^^ That'd be #735449, sorry. The BTS metadata implies that this bug is unfixed in unstable and applicable to the package there; is that correct? It is fixed in kfreebsd-10. As the plan for kfreebsd-9 is to remove it after the transition to -10 is complete, we haven't made a new kfreebsd-9 upload just for this bug. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52e6d288.5010...@debian.org
Bug#728919: freebsd-libs transition
On 20/01/2014 11:04, Julien Cristau wrote: Control: tag -1 confirmed On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 22:44:53 +0100, Robert Millan wrote: Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition There are a couple of ABI changes coming to freebsd-libs. They're in soon-to-be-released 10.x branch, so it may yet take a while until we get them through upstream release upgrade. However, as they're highly isolated from the codebase, it is trivial to cherry-pick them. I'm sending this request now so that you have more room to select the most appropiate time for the transition. Feel free to upload the new version to sid. Done. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52dd4476.4090...@debian.org
Re: Release sprint results - team changes, auto-rm and arch status
no replacement for testing the actual program itself. I think a good step in that direction would be to ensure that nobody, ever, disables a testsuite on kfreebsd. Many packages run a testsuite without making 100% completion mandatory (I think of GCC as an example). I think it would be reasonable to accept this in cases where they've proven to be more of a problem than a solution? -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52d28c2c.8050...@debian.org
Re: Release sprint results - team changes, auto-rm and arch status
On 12/01/2014 13:52, intrigeri wrote: Hi, Robert Millan wrote (12 Jan 2014 12:35:56 GMT) : For example, I've been trying to assess the state of GNOME in general by trying to find bugs myself. I will report my findings soon, however this is clearly not optimal. My quick kick the tires testing is much less reliable than day-to-day usage in production done by real users. I'm somewhat surprised that such real Debian/kFreeBSD users (who I expect to be a bit more tech-savvy than the average Debian user) who use GNOME on a day-to-day basis are not reporting such bugs to the BTS. This makes me curious. Assuming these real users actually exist, what steps can be taken within the Debian/kFreeBSD community to improve this? I've no idea what kind of communication channels the porters have with the corresponding users, so I'm wondering. The BTS should be the only channel, IMHO. Though the mailing lists are often used to report problems, I think this should be avoided whenever possible. When you find a bug, please use the BTS and if it's relevant to kFreeBSD put debian-bsd on CC. This will make our effort much easier. Specifically regarding the ability to test GNOME, I think #733122 is the biggest blocker right now. Once this is fixed, testing GNOME will become much more straightforward for the average user. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52d2bc23.1080...@debian.org
Re: Release sprint results - team changes, auto-rm and arch status
On 11/01/2014 21:32, Niels Thykier wrote: So far #733122. Barring that, the GNOME desktop seems to work fine (including empathy, nautilus, etc). Once the patch in #733122 is applied, it will be easier to gather reports from day-to-day users and provide a more complete assessment. Thanks for looking into this. I have asked on #d-gnome about the patch you submitted; hopefully it can be applied soon, so we can get a better view. Excellent, thanks. We can help as porters but we can't maintain abandoned codepaths on our own. I think GDM upstream doesn't want to deal with this problem, so perhaps it is better if we accept that GDM is not a portable program anymore, and make it Linux-only. Do you have an idea of the consequences of making it linux-only? If it is just using (e.g.) xdm instead of and kFreeBSD losing a couple of packages, it will probably not be much of an issue. But then, I assume that GNOME and GDM are not tightly coupled. Yes, I think that's the case. I still have to look a bit more carefully though, so please don't take my word on it. I'll followup on this. #649196 is probably not an issue anymore. We've replaced our thread implementation since. Okay, perhaps you could follow up on the bug with that information and ask if it is still an issue? Done. (I'll reply to the remaining bits in a separate mail) -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52d1bd86.60...@debian.org
Re: Release sprint results - team changes, auto-rm and arch status
On 11/01/2014 21:32, Niels Thykier wrote: As for #712848, the latest comment sent by Petr suggested that the test might be incorrect when applied to kqueue. I guess you are referring to comment #25 here? Quote: This test is guarded by: [...] The kqueue support might have the same limit. I do not know whether is better to use kqueue via gamin or kqueue directly in glib2.0. Petr Seems like no one picked it up from there. To be honest, I am not sure where the ball is on that bug right now - as an outsider it is not clear to me if Petr is asking for the GNOME maintainers or the BSD porters to follow/second him. Admittedly, I have very limited knowledge of the code in question, so it may be more obvious to you. Perhaps you could follow up on the bug and prod the GNOME maintainers for a follow up, if you believe the ball is in their court right now. Before we get into that, would it be possible to establish the severity of this bug? Specifically, whether it is Release-Critical or not. It is currently marked as non-RC, and so far we haven't seen any indication that it produces actual breakage (outside the testsuite, that is) [1]. However, your comments in this and earlier mails seem to imply that it is RC, or that you think it could be. In our experience as porters, we've found that we get lots of testsuite failures (and not just in GNOME). However, often the tests just fail because they're overzealous, or because they make wrong (unportable) assumptions about the underlying APIs. I believe #628383 would be a good example of what I'm saying. But the problem is very typical. It's not uncommon for us to submit fixes for testsuite bugs rather than having to fix the bugs the tests are supposed to find. Probably Petr and/or Steven can elaborate more on this, since they've been much more actively involved than me in this kind of work. [1] If the reason it is RC is that it causes FTBFS (and serious buildd grief), I think http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=734290#10 is a good solution in that regard. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52d1c159.3020...@debian.org
gdm3 (was: Re: Release sprint results - team changes, auto-rm and arch status)
On 11/01/2014 22:54, Robert Millan wrote: Do you have an idea of the consequences of making it linux-only? If it is just using (e.g.) xdm instead of and kFreeBSD losing a couple of packages, it will probably not be much of an issue. But then, I assume that GNOME and GDM are not tightly coupled. Yes, I think that's the case. I still have to look a bit more carefully though, so please don't take my word on it. I'll followup on this. See #735023. Result of my tests is included there. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52d1cd49.9060...@debian.org
Re: Release sprint results - team changes, auto-rm and arch status
On 05/01/2014 10:30, Niels Thykier wrote: On 2013-12-16 23:32, Robert Millan wrote: On 15/12/2013 13:34, Niels Thykier wrote: It would probably be good if you (i.e. the BSD porters) could start a dialogue with the GNOME maintainers and figure out exactly where GNOME is on kFreeBSD (vs. where it is supposed to be). Once that is sorted out, please send the release team a summary of the status so we have accurate information here. Will do. But this can't be done right away. The reports you mention are too vague (xxx doesn't work, etc) to act upon. We will first need to evaluate the current state of things to have an accurate idea on where we stand regarding GNOME. Hi Robert / BSD porters, Any news on your front on the status of GNOME on kFreeBSD? So far #733122. Barring that, the GNOME desktop seems to work fine (including empathy, nautilus, etc). Once the patch in #733122 is applied, it will be easier to gather reports from day-to-day users and provide a more complete assessment. GDM is a different story (see #733546). The problem goes much deeper though. It's now begun to use SystemD by default, and then falling back to ConsoleKit when that's not available. There are two serious problems with this: - The GDM-ConsoleKit codepath is seldom tested. We don't know if it's actually working. - According to upstream website, ConsoleKit is deprecated and not actively maintained. We can help as porters but we can't maintain abandoned codepaths on our own. I think GDM upstream doesn't want to deal with this problem, so perhaps it is better if we accept that GDM is not a portable program anymore, and make it Linux-only. And then there's #734070 which AFAICT only results in a few harmless errors (still, it'd be nice to have it merged, just in case). The other day, I was told on IRC that some of the glib tests had been disabled / ignored on kFreeBSD (see #649196 and #712848). I have not reviewed them in detail, though the former have no follow up at all (but I don't see a CC either, so I guess that is not surprising). #649196 is probably not an issue anymore. We've replaced our thread implementation since. As for #712848, the latest comment sent by Petr suggested that the test might be incorrect when applied to kqueue. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52c9407a.4040...@debian.org
Re: Release sprint results - team changes, auto-rm and arch status
On 05/01/2014 18:47, Edward Tomasz Napierała wrote: We can help as porters but we can't maintain abandoned codepaths on our own. I think GDM upstream doesn't want to deal with this problem, so perhaps it is better if we accept that GDM is not a portable program anymore, and make it Linux-only. Or perhaps write a library that provides systemd APIs GDM requires, implemented as wrappers around other stuff. Who will do this? Do you volunteer? And afterwards, who will keep it up to date? SystemD doesn't conform to any standard or specification. The definition of systemd APIs GDM requires is implementation-defined and can change every day, without notice. When this creates new problems, who will debug them? -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52c99fc1.1050...@debian.org
Bug#728919: freebsd-libs transition
Any thoughts about this? The new release is getting closer (10.0-RC3 is already overdue by a few days). On 06/11/2013 22:44, Robert Millan wrote: Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition There are a couple of ABI changes coming to freebsd-libs. They're in soon-to-be-released 10.x branch, so it may yet take a while until we get them through upstream release upgrade. However, as they're highly isolated from the codebase, it is trivial to cherry-pick them. I'm sending this request now so that you have more room to select the most appropiate time for the transition. We can even make one transition at a time if you think it's best. title = libusb3; is_affected = .depends ~ /libusb2debian.*/ | .depends ~ /libusb3.*/; is_good = .depends ~ /libusb3.*/; is_bad = .depends ~ /libusb2debian.*/; title = libkvm6; is_affected = .depends ~ /libkvm0.*/ | .depends ~ /libkvm6.*/; is_good = .depends ~ /libkvm6.*/; is_bad = .depends ~ /libkvm0.*/; -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52bace0f.8040...@debian.org
Re: Release sprint results - team changes, auto-rm and arch status
On 15/12/2013 13:34, Niels Thykier wrote: It would probably be good if you (i.e. the BSD porters) could start a dialogue with the GNOME maintainers and figure out exactly where GNOME is on kFreeBSD (vs. where it is supposed to be). Once that is sorted out, please send the release team a summary of the status so we have accurate information here. Will do. But this can't be done right away. The reports you mention are too vague (xxx doesn't work, etc) to act upon. We will first need to evaluate the current state of things to have an accurate idea on where we stand regarding GNOME. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52af7f88.50...@debian.org
Re: Release sprint results - team changes, auto-rm and arch status
On 28/11/2013 21:49, Steven Chamberlain wrote: On 28/11/13 20:04, Niels Thykier wrote: kFreeBSD was a technology preview, and has not generated enough user interest to bring in sufficient install base to continue in this state. We will review this situation after 28th January 2014. Architectures still causing us concern at that point will join ia64 in no longer being considered for britney migrations and may be dropped from testing after a further period. I'm unclear on what this means, or what should happen by that date to ensure it is considered sufficient to continue in 'this state' (meaning, a release architecture and considered for Britney migration?). Uhm I think we both may have misunderstood. Perhaps 'this state' just means 'as technology preview'. I.e. normal QA requirements are no longer waived because of preview status. If that is the case, I think the kFreeBSD port is perfectly capable of meeting these requirements. The system is quite robust already, in fact I've used it in production environments several times (including infrastructure for a major corporation which will remain unnamed), with very satisfactory results. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5299c1ed.2010...@debian.org
Re: Release sprint results - team changes, auto-rm and arch status
On 28/11/2013 21:49, Steven Chamberlain wrote: On 28/11/13 20:04, Niels Thykier wrote: kFreeBSD was a technology preview, and has not generated enough user interest to bring in sufficient install base to continue in this state. We will review this situation after 28th January 2014. Architectures still causing us concern at that point will join ia64 in no longer being considered for britney migrations and may be dropped from testing after a further period. I'm not sure what the threshold for sufficient install base is, but if it's lower than 129 then I'm sorry to hear that mipsel and s390(x) are being removed. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52988904.6030...@debian.org
Bug#726032: transition: GNOME 3.8: gnome-desktop (and all the rest)
Michael Biebl: TTBOMK there is no working 3D support on kfreebsd which would allow to run GNOME Shell on kfreebsd Can you be more specific? AFAIK we've got a working OpenGL implementation. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/525873f7.3060...@debian.org
Bug#726032: transition: GNOME 3.8: gnome-desktop (and all the rest)
Michael Biebl: Am 11.10.2013 23:56, schrieb Robert Millan: Michael Biebl: TTBOMK there is no working 3D support on kfreebsd which would allow to run GNOME Shell on kfreebsd Can you be more specific? AFAIK we've got a working OpenGL implementation. I asked repeatedly if someone was running gnome-shell under kfreebsd successfully. So far I didn't get positive feedback, thus I'm assuming it is not functional. I remember one user showing up running fallback under kfreebsd, but that's all. It's possible. But hopefully there's nothing wrong with 3D support? BTW kfreebsd-* is not a special case here. I doubt GNOME is fully functional in all the architectures it's being built for. IIRC last time I tried it on mipsel I had to fix a few serious problems that had gone undetected for years due to lack of testing. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/525881f0.4030...@debian.org
Bug#725304: pu: package kfreebsd-9/9.0-10+deb70.5
Adam D. Barratt: There is a 9.0-10+deb70.4 upload in Secre^WSecurity Team's queue since 23 days ago but I've no idea the status if this. [rt.debian.org #4671] In that case, the status of that package needs clarifying. Releasing .5 via p-u if .4 is then going to appear via security doesn't really work. .4 just went into proposed-updates. Does this address your concerns? -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5255c37d.8040...@debian.org
Bug#725304: pu: package kfreebsd-9/9.0-10+deb70.5
Adam D. Barratt: In that case, the status of that package needs clarifying. Releasing .5 via p-u if .4 is then going to appear via security doesn't really work. .4 just went into proposed-updates. No. It's in wheezy-security, but it's _not_ in proposed-updates because it reached pu-NEW after the window for 7.2 closed. Uhm sorry then, I got confused by e1vtrz5-0001cf...@franck.debian.org which said otherwise. Does this address your concerns? Yes, thanks. Please feel free to upload; the package will then be processed after the point release. Fine. Thank you! -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5255d4ea.50...@debian.org
Re: RM: kfreebsd-headers-9.2-1-486 [i386] -- ANAIS; obsolete package
Steven Chamberlain: http://release.debian.org/migration/testing.pl?package=kfreebsd-9 Updating kfreebsd-9 makes 5 non-depending packages uninstallable on i386: cuse4bsd-dkms, fuse4bsd-dkms, kfreebsd-headers-486, kfreebsd-headers-686, kfreebsd-headers-xen Note that britney tests i386 first, then aborts without checking other architectures. cuse4bsd-dkms and fuse4bsd-dkms are Arch: all so I'm not sure why that's a problem. I think Britney considers uninstallability of an Arch: all package on i386 a regression, and therefore doesn't allow it. I guess this part will require manual handling by -release? (CCing) Otherwise we'd have to make those packages kfreebsd-any... kfreebsd-defaults should not provide kfreebsd-headers-* metapackages on linux. I just uploaded 9+2 without them. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5252b23d.1060...@debian.org
Re: RM: kfreebsd-headers-9.2-1-486 [i386] -- ANAIS; obsolete package
Adam D. Barratt: I guess this part will require manual handling by -release? (CCing) Otherwise we'd have to make those packages kfreebsd-any... It'd need a force-hint, which says ignore any installability issues created by migrating this source package and only applies to the particular version of the package. That's obviously not ideal for something that's going to want to migrate on a fairly regular basis. We make it kfreebsd-any then? -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/525312d4.2060...@debian.org
Re: RM: kfreebsd-headers-9.2-1-486 [i386] -- ANAIS; obsolete package
Adam D. Barratt: On Mon, 2013-10-07 at 20:00 +, Robert Millan wrote: Adam D. Barratt: I guess this part will require manual handling by -release? (CCing) Otherwise we'd have to make those packages kfreebsd-any... It'd need a force-hint, which says ignore any installability issues created by migrating this source package and only applies to the particular version of the package. That's obviously not ideal for something that's going to want to migrate on a fairly regular basis. We make it kfreebsd-any then? For the sake of one (or was it two) extra binary package build, that would seem the easiest solution all round, yes. Done (for both fuse4bsd and cuse4bsd). This problem is likely to resurface in the future. Please consider finding a long term solution for Britney. Thanks -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52532643.7040...@debian.org
Bug#725304: pu: package kfreebsd-9/9.0-10+deb70.5
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: pu Please, consider giving your pre-approval to this update, the purpose of which is to fix a grave kernel page fault condition (see #71 for details). Thanks! Index: debian/changelog === --- debian/changelog (revision 4994) +++ debian/changelog (working copy) @@ -1,3 +1,9 @@ +kfreebsd-9 (9.0-10+deb70.5) stable; urgency=low + + * Disable 101_nullfs_vsock.diff. (Closes: #71) + + -- Robert Millan r...@debian.org Sun, 15 Sep 2013 18:43:12 +0200 + kfreebsd-9 (9.0-10+deb70.4) wheezy-security; urgency=high * Team upload. Index: debian/patches/series === --- debian/patches/series (revision 4994) +++ debian/patches/series (working copy) @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ 006_mips_i8259_alloc.diff #007_clone_signals.diff #009_disable_duped_modules.diff -101_nullfs_vsock.diff +#101_nullfs_vsock.diff 107_mount_update.diff 108_teken_utf8_table.diff 109_linprocfs_non_x86.diff
Re: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I am an active porter for the following architectures and I intend to continue this for the lifetime of the jessie release: For kfreebsd-*, I - - test packages on this architecture This includes running it on my main Desktop / Workstation and am therefore testing the relevant stack every day - - maintain arch-related packages under the hat of the GNU/kFreeBSD Maintainers - - coordinate with upstream and merge patches in FreeBSD HEAD (I am also a FreeBSD developer) - - read debian-bsd@l.d.o every few days - - provide assistance with arch-related bugs I am a DD -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/kFreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlI13MkACgkQC19io6rUCv8GMACeKRjp4MDexIdVzc/joKteIGls uYYAnRytlsjLDkj8ygs2vbx8GNpg9BHk =xor2 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5235dcf6.4010...@debian.org
Re: Bug#718490: freebsd-net-tools: ifconfig segfaults on Jessie
2013/8/2 Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org: [Robert - not sure if you saw my last mail, but a new upload of freebsd-utils should not be needed now.] Hi Steven, Yes, I've seen it. Unfortunately I had already uploaded by then. Sorry :-( -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOfDtXMBLAYp6L=VpjLHGnods=5aysr5grum8+0efyfjafe...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#714324: pu: package grub2/1.99-27.1+deb7u1
2013/6/29 Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk: grub2 (1.99-27.1) unstable; urgency=medium Hmmm, this looks to have been based on the wrong version? wheezy has 1.99-27+deb7u1 currently. Yeah, sorry. The wheezy branch in our bazaar repo was tracking the wrong version. Here's a fixed diff. -- Robert Millan grub_kfreebsd.diff Description: Binary data
Bug#714324: pu: package grub2/1.99-27.1+deb7u1
2013/7/1 Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk: Thanks; please go ahead. Uploaded. Thank you. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOfDtXNx3Ep-6SFpYHke=kbuxhzadefdpxyxzn-rkiqwhvh...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#714324: pu: package grub2/1.99-27.1+deb7u1
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: pu Hi, Version of grub currently in wheezy could break bootability when kernel is upgraded to 9.1. This will become specially relevant for upgrade path when jessie is released. See bug #699002 for details. There's a very simple fix, cherry-picked from upstream. -- Robert Millan grub_kfreebsd.diff Description: Binary data
Re: unblock request for kfreebsd-downloader 9.0-3+deb70.1
2013/6/20 Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk: Out of interest, where did you get the version scheme +deb70.1 from? I don't think I've seen that one before (our suggested version would have been +deb7u1, as per dev-ref). Steven just pointed out (correctly). I take note that +deb7u1 is preferred. Hopefully I can even apply this, if memory serves ;-) -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caofdtxoknwavkhsouyob8soe3nnhnx6vk2ax_yno-tyzcpv...@mail.gmail.com
unblock request for kfreebsd-downloader 9.0-3+deb70.1
Apologies for sending the request after uploading, but as I tend to do
this about once every few years, I forget very easily.
kfreebsd-downloader broke because the URL it relied on is now
returning 404 error. So, a different URL is being used now.
Debdiff:
diff -Nru kfreebsd-downloader-9.0/debian/changelog
kfreebsd-downloader-9.0/debian/changelog
--- kfreebsd-downloader-9.0/debian/changelog2012-06-10
21:11:35.0 +0200
+++ kfreebsd-downloader-9.0/debian/changelog2013-06-19
23:59:48.0 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+kfreebsd-downloader (9.0-3+deb70.1) stable; urgency=low
+
+ * Switch to people.debian.org URL for kernel.txz download.
+(Closes: #712816)
+
+ -- Robert Millan r...@debian.org Wed, 19 Jun 2013 23:56:56 +0200
+
kfreebsd-downloader (9.0-3) unstable; urgency=high
* Split versioned packages to make it possible to install multiple
diff -Nru kfreebsd-downloader-9.0/debian/postinst.in
kfreebsd-downloader-9.0/debian/postinst.in
--- kfreebsd-downloader-9.0/debian/postinst.in 2012-02-03
20:46:19.0 +0100
+++ kfreebsd-downloader-9.0/debian/postinst.in 2013-06-19
23:43:42.0 +0200
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@
# Download
mkdir -p ${cachedir}
- wget
http://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/releases/@ARCH@/@ARCH@/@RELEASE@/kernel.txz
\
+ wget
http://people.debian.org/~rmh/kfreebsd-downloader/@ARCH@/@RELEASE@/kernel.txz
\
-c -O ${cachedir}/kernel.txz
# Verify
--
Robert Millan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/caofdtxnkvan511uw1mpvxcq2am+sqkgfip-qupbrgo0zy1s...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#683739: unblock: kfreebsd-9/9.0-5
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package kfreebsd-9 It fixes a Policy violation (#672255) and a bug in linprocfs (#682291 / #681594) which is holding off fix for an RC bug in another package (haxe FTBFS, see #621890). An ABI bump was triggered by the second fix. kfreebsd-9 (9.0-5) unstable; urgency=low * Remove /boot symlink kludge. (Closes: #672255) * fix_VOP_VPTOCNP_bypass_for_nullfs.diff: Fix /proc/self/exe in nullfs. (Closes: #682291, #681594) -- Robert Millan r...@debian.org Sat, 21 Jul 2012 16:07:17 +0200 unblock kfreebsd-9/9.0-5 -- System Information: Debian Release: 6.0.4 APT prefers stable-updates APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'stable') Architecture: kfreebsd-amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: kFreeBSD 8.1-1-amd64 Locale: LANG=ca_AD.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=ca_AD.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120803131045.1271.1925.reportbug@thorin
Bug#683739: unblock: kfreebsd-9/9.0-5
2012/8/3 Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk: Given all of the above, we should consider whether this should wait until after the release. What about #683562? (still not fixed) -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOfDtXNy99azgtmOmGB2i-CS2_z0MimY=p-l9vjhbgdq7cd...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Possible problems in your Debian packages
2012/7/5 Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org: I guessed that this (and other low-severity bugs) were flagged like this simply because they are usertagged with 'kfreebsd'? In which case that may be a bit OTT. Oh, I see -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caofdtxpt_ebpvkhiu8nk++xt9jlt_tftchoohjjfr0j7w5v...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Possible problems in your Debian packages
Dear release team, 2012/6/30 DDPOMail robot ddpom...@qa.debian.org: === freebsd-utils: = 1 Release Goals bug(s): - #577494 http://bugs.debian.org/577494 include ktrdump and vmstat Part of release goal: kfreebsd-* as release architectures Please could you give more details on which part of #577494 is considered a release goal? The bug title mentions ktrdump and vmstat, two utilities which are seldom used. The bug log also mentions arp, perhaps it's arp you're concerned with? arp I would understand, but it sounds really strange that you consider ktrdump and vmstat as mandatory for kfreebsd-* to qualify as release architectures. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caofdtxpb+hdbphhv4xbjswdxgggakjrz3t57yy5lymvjhyn...@mail.gmail.com
Re: kfreebsd-i386 qualification for Wheezy
2012/5/16 Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk: On 16.05.2012 13:38, Steven Chamberlain wrote: The table seems to be missing portbox: io aiui, io's still down to all intents and purposes; if that's correct then it doesn't really qualify as a porterbox right now. Does asdfasdf have i386 chroots? If not, is it feasible to add them? Would then asdfasdf qualify as porter box for kfreebsd-i386? -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caofdtxps0fws6q53d9pcxpodrvkxov7+cu0a9asjpn+mh4d...@mail.gmail.com
Re: new patch. eglibc upload urgently required!
2012/5/1 Aurelien Jarno aure...@debian.org: Are you sure this is correct? It seems to me that this can be a big problem if those packages migrate to testing before eglibc does. Not it's a mistake, I don't know how I managed that. I am going to fix that in an upload today. Thanks! -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caofdtxmuq9fnklyktqbpwih0_unou6jbtp8eh+cg0qtokmu...@mail.gmail.com
Re: new patch. eglibc upload urgently required!
2012/4/22 Robert Millan r...@debian.org: I notice that my initial patch didn't handle the library dependency part. I'm attaching a new patch that fixes this issue. This makes new packages built against the patched libc0.1-dev depend on libc0.1 = 2.13-31. VERY IMPORTANT NOTICE: if this patch is introduced in a later version (rather than 2.13-31), you MUST change the version in debian/libc0.1.symbols.common to the first version that provides pthread_condattr_*etclock on GNU/kFreeBSD. Uhm, I notice you didn't include this part. Now packages that build with libc0.1-dev 2.13-31 won't have a versioned dependency on libc0.1 = 2.13-31. Are you sure this is correct? It seems to me that this can be a big problem if those packages migrate to testing before eglibc does. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caofdtxn33lcn-bmsfefx3k7y_waw8d2vd5obxpzbdy8hfmw...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#670184: RM: kfreebsd-8 [hurd-i386] -- NVIU; blocks transition of 8.3-1
Package: ftp.debian.org Severity: normal The hurd-i386 buildd isn't keeping up, so 8.2-11 hurd-i386 builds haven't been replaced with 8.3-1. This prevents automated removal of kfreebsd-source-8.2 from unstable, which I believe is what is currently preventing migration of 8.3-1 to testing. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120423201419.51100.37955.reportbug@thorin
new patch. eglibc upload urgently required!
Hi, I notice that my initial patch didn't handle the library dependency part. I'm attaching a new patch that fixes this issue. This makes new packages built against the patched libc0.1-dev depend on libc0.1 = 2.13-31. VERY IMPORTANT NOTICE: if this patch is introduced in a later version (rather than 2.13-31), you MUST change the version in debian/libc0.1.symbols.common to the first version that provides pthread_condattr_*etclock on GNU/kFreeBSD. Please could you give an estimate on when you'll be able to include it in glibc? This issue is currently blocking libsoup2.4 builds (see #663056). It does also have a major impact on other programs that use glib (see #667686). Also, the other fixes already committed to pkg-glibc are also quite important, as they are also blocking RC bugs in other packages. If you're all busy and can't prepare an upload right now, please say it so the package be NMUed. Thanks! -- Robert Millan setclock.diff Description: Binary data
Re: new patch. eglibc upload urgently required!
El 22 d’abril de 2012 17:08, Aurelien Jarno aure...@debian.org ha escrit: I have been mostly away from Debian stuff in the last weeks due to moving, but i'll try to catchup with glibc stuff during the next days and schedule an upload for the middle of the week. Good to hear, thanks. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caofdtxmxpmzu1gv_z+bdoq_ooxsm+d3qc3gui-esrnrwfyx...@mail.gmail.com
Re: python2.7: FTBFS(kfreebsd): testsuite hang
Matthias, do you plan an upload this weekend? As up-to-date python2.7 builds are rather urgent (they're now blocking the netcdf transition), it'd be very nice to have a fix in the following days. If you don't currently have time, please let us know so that it be NMUed. Thanks! El 18 d’abril de 2012 20:45, Robert Millan r...@debian.org ha escrit: # Bug 654783 cloned as bug 669281 tag 669281 patch retitle 654783 race condition in libpthread causes hangs in python2.7 testsuite severity 654783 wishlist reassign 654783 libc0.1 thanks Hi, It seems that outdated python2.7 on kfreebsd-* is the last problem holding off the netcdf7 transition [1] (v-sim is on dep-wait for python = 2.7.2-13 [2]). This is also holding off a fix for upstream issue 13817, which is needed to fix guitarix FTBFS (see #668240). OTOH, it introduces failure of a few tests (test_socket, test_threading, test_signal). Additionally, I've seen the testsuite itself hang after all tests had been completed. By looking at the debug information we've obtained so far, this seems like a libpthread-related problem, rather than an issue introduced by Python itself. As you can see, we're currently investigating the problems that cause these hangs. However, taking the whole picture into account, my impression is that the new python2.7 fixes more problems than it creates. So, would you please consider disabling the testsuite on kfreebsd-* so that we can move on with the netcdf7 transition? We will, of course, continue investigating the problems that cause this breakage. I'm attaching a (tested) patch to do just that. [1] http://release.debian.org/transitions/html/netcdf7.html [2] https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=v-sim -- Robert Millan -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caofdtxobjqagb6jixqwanq755r_uoloj1-+m+4karyaj0--...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#660022: transition status
El 4 de març de 2012 13:16, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk ha escrit: On 03.03.2012 16:19, Adam D. Barratt wrote: out of date on kfreebsd-amd64: libcam0, libsbuf0, libsbuf0-udeb, libusb2, libusb2-udeb, libusbhid4 (from 8.3~svn229725-3) out of date on kfreebsd-i386: libcam0, libsbuf0, libsbuf0-udeb, libusb2, libusb2-udeb, libusbhid4 (from 8.3~svn229725-3) The final uploads to make the latter go away were made earlier today, so I've asked for them to be decrufted. freebsd-libs itself and most of its r-deps migrated last night, with a few more migrating this morning. The last package keeping the old libraries in testing now is mednafen, which was mising a build; that's now been uploaded so hopefully we should be able to get this finished with tonight's britney run. Very nice, thanks a lot for your help patience. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caofdtxncyjgeh35c1g9znagka2dchhivfzl-e2qjicuyrmx...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#660022: transition status
El 28 de febrer de 2012 22:07, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk ha escrit: The packages which have not been successfully rebuilt thus far are: - cdparanoia - maintainers, are there plans for an upload to resolve #660403? If not, would you be averse to an NMU purely containing the updated kBSD patch? - mednafen, xine-lib - binNMUs now scheduled AFAICS the only remaining issues are: freebsd-buildutils is only 8 days old. It must be 10 days old to go in. kfreebsd-kernel-headers is only 4 days old. It must be 10 days old to go in. Instead of waiting one more week, perhaps it'd make sense to force migration of those two packages? In both cases the majority of changes in update have been tested in unstable for more than 10 days already. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caofdtxofnevydjetskcf6vca-22eo-1beafcy2ihtcvvdd-...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#660022: [Pkg-opt-media-team] Bug#660403: cdparanoia (Re: transition status)
Hi, El 25 de febrer de 2012 17:03, Rogério Brito rbr...@ime.usp.br ha escrit: Is there anything that I can do helping with this? The only thing I can think of is sticking to versions of cdparanoia supported by FreeBSD upstream (http://www.freshports.org/audio/cdparanoia/). However I can understand this may be impractical. Sorry that I can't suggest any better solution. The real fix is to persuade upstream of course... Just for the record, the last time I tried to send kFreeBSD patches to upstream, he refused on the basis that he wasn't able to test it on that platform. I'd suggest to document this in the patch header (maybe this avoids repeating this discussion FWIW). Thanks! -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caofdtxncux9kakpzcm05f+uhz-huusjxeh2wrmvfpmwj48w...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#660022: transition status
El 28 de febrer de 2012 22:07, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk ha escrit: On Sun, 2012-02-26 at 11:08 +, Robert Millan wrote: Btw, would a new freebsd-libs upload disrupt anything? A fix for #661274 is required, although this isn't a transition blocker AFAICT. That rather depends on [...] No worries, if there's a shade of doubt that bugfix can wait IMHO. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caofdtxm7a_zjch_j7vs1i5hqcsbkwhrdg5xztqkbe9epsdd...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#660022: cdparanoia (Re: transition status)
El 25 de febrer de 2012 17:51, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk ha escrit: In fact, it wasn't particularly hard at all, especially given the k3b patch to use for inspiration. The attached diff makes the package build again, although I don't have a suitable kfreebsd-* system available right now to test it on. Testing and comments welcome. I still think the current situation with cdparanoia is unsustainable however. I don't have time to invest on this, but this chunk of code should really be moved to upstream. It changes things a lot when you have FreeBSD Ports contributing patches in this kind of situations (c.f. k3b). Anyway, thanks for supplying a fix. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caofdtxmz_brrhzmnu1qfq0qyv_ggegn7dy7heaz7tdka6sb...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#660022: transition status
Btw, would a new freebsd-libs upload disrupt anything? A fix for #661274 is required, although this isn't a transition blocker AFAICT. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caofdtxmgowk9t9ydoqdj+xt99ovsravunh0lxbvxgzuvlv6...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#660022: transition status
Hi, I figured it'd be useful to send a status update to summarize on what's done and what's missing: 659615: FTBFS on kfreebsd-amd64 - Fixed by maintainer since 15th Feb. 660395: xserver-xorg-input-joystick: FTBFS on kfreebsd-* - Fixed in NMU since 19th Feb. 660398: k3b: FTBFS on kfreebsd-* 660515: FTBFS on kfreebsd-* - Patch available. Tagged pending by maintainer since 20th Feb. Should it be NMUed? CCing maintainer. 660400: hal: FTBFS on kfreebsd-* - Fixed in NMU since 18th Feb. 660403: cdparanoia: FTFBS on kfreebsd-* - Unless there's further activity I recommend removing of kfreebsd-* binaries from testing. See http://bugs.debian.org./cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=660403#12 660397: qpxtool: FTBFS on kfreebsd-* 660401: dvd+rw-tools: FTBFS on kfreebsd-* - (eglibc bug) Tagged pending by maintainer since 20th Feb. Should it be NMUed? CCing maintainer. 659659: current version of ifconfig breaks D-I - Uploaded fix currently in NEW, expect RSN. 660396: sane-backends: FTBFS on kfreebsd-* - (kfreebsd-kernel-headers bug) Fixed today in 0.75. BinNMU? -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOfDtXOD-EaosLx9utruzBQ5E_Va_V4=vdxhygrcxvqxfad...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#660022: cdparanoia (Re: transition status)
El 25 de febrer de 2012 13:46, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk ha escrit: On Sat, 2012-02-25 at 12:20 +, Robert Millan wrote: 660403: cdparanoia: FTFBS on kfreebsd-* - Unless there's further activity I recommend removing of kfreebsd-* binaries from testing. See http://bugs.debian.org./cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=660403#12 That doesn't work. The choices would be removing the kfreebsd-* binaries from unstable, and letting that propagate, or removing the entire package from testing. Is an upload needed in first case? -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOfDtXOMwszMXAcHXE3Vxt7io2xXVWwL5i5b0XrcQm=voks...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#660022: transition status
El 25 de febrer de 2012 13:46, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk ha escrit: 660397: qpxtool: FTBFS on kfreebsd-* 660401: dvd+rw-tools: FTBFS on kfreebsd-* - (eglibc bug) Tagged pending by maintainer since 20th Feb. Should it be NMUed? CCing maintainer. That's still less than a week. Aurelien, are there any plans for an upload in the near future? It seems that an upload is expected this weekend: http://lists.debian.org/debian-bsd/2012/02/msg00186.html btw, http://bugs.debian.org/src:kfreebsd-kernel-headers still lists two outstanding RC bugs. You need to use versioned -done mails, not just add fixed versions. Done. There's also mednafen and xine-lib, which I think have transitive dependencies via libsdl1.2? The latter still seems to be FTBFS on kfreebsd-amd64, despite the patch from #659615 being applied. I've just given it back for one last try. (as said in the other mail a k-k-h update is required) fwiw, there's a possibility that vlc might be a blocker, given that the new upstream version is FTBFS on multiple architectures (including kfreebsd-*). I'll have a look. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOfDtXOZxe64Tb+o1BUYX=9zgyudxftutx39jtzl_+8--lq...@mail.gmail.com
Re: freebsd-libs transition
El 14 de febrer de 2012 20:53, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk ha escrit: kfreebsd-*: libsbuf-dev is needed for a build system component, which is not installed in kfreebsd package. So there's no need to binNMU them? No. libsdl1.2: It was built without usb support because configure probe failed, most likely due to breakage in kfreebsd-kernel-headers which isn't present anymore. With up-to-date sid configure probe succeeds but it FTBFS later due to API change (filed as #659615). Fun... There was a small code error; I sent a patch already. I've scheduled binNMUs for the first level of packages on the transition tracker (URL above). Note that in the process I discovered that freebsd-libs no longer builds on Linux architectures, which will need to be resolved as part of the transition; see #659913. As explained the culprit is freebsd-buildutils, not freebsd-libs. I believe freebsd-buildutils 9.0-6 should now build on Linux-based systems, but I still have no feedback from the buildds. I'd appreciate if someone can confirm, as I don't have a GNU/Linux system at hand atm. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caofdtxpqtbuooucw1mb8j3hptr8vclqjdre9m3zxnksbqia...@mail.gmail.com
Re: freebsd-libs transition
El 12 de febrer de 2012 12:53, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk ha escrit: Looking at http://release.debian.org/transitions/html/freebsd-libs.html , there are several packages which build-depend on a -dev package produced by freebsd-libs but don't have a run-time dependency; what's the situation with them? argyll: libusbhid is used for a private libray known as libinst, which doesn't seem to be installed anywhere. kfreebsd-*: libsbuf-dev is needed for a build system component, which is not installed in kfreebsd package. libsdl1.2: It was built without usb support because configure probe failed, most likely due to breakage in kfreebsd-kernel-headers which isn't present anymore. With up-to-date sid configure probe succeeds but it FTBFS later due to API change (filed as #659615). zfsutils: gratuitous build-dependency (fixed in SVN). totem: gratuitous build-dependency (filed as #659622). colord: gratuitous build-dependency (filed as #659624). libimobiledevice gratuitous build-dependency (filed as #659625). libisoburn: gratuitous build-dependency (filed as #659621). -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caofdtxpe+zjthof7hssyua3qrjcgnkcah3qfky2br_xqbcs...@mail.gmail.com
Re: freebsd-libs transition
FYI after freebsd-libs 8.3 has migrated to testing, freebsd-libs 9.0 has been uploaded to unstable. -release: Please can you take appropiate measures to begin the transition? El 29 de gener de 2012 14:43, Robert Millan r...@debian.org ha escrit: [ Please CC me, not subscribed! ] Hi! We have an incoming soname bump in freebsd-libs (libusb, libusbhid, libcam and libsbuf). Should we wait until the current transition is over, or upload to unstable with the new sonames as soon as possible? -- Robert Millan -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOfDtXNA3UnXUXaPQsTf1F+iP3RTVDcPXA4+xq3yZ�gzq...@mail.gmail.com
Re: freebsd-libs transition
Hi Adam, El 4 de febrer de 2012 19:44, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk ha escrit: On Sat, 2012-02-04 at 19:36 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Sat, 2012-02-04 at 19:09 +, Robert Millan wrote: Should we wait until the current transition is over, or upload to unstable with the new sonames as soon as possible? So, re-reading this, I realised that you were only asking whether you should wait for the current freebsd-libs to reach testing first. Indeed. I assumed the NACK answer to my question (that is, not to upload before testing migration). That's somewhat the wrong question. The libraries produced by freebsd-libs are used by other packages, some of which will at various points be involved in other transitions (and indeed may be right now), so the more appropriate thing to do would have been to ask when would be a good time to upload and then wait for a response to that. Sorry about that. That I can recall, this is is the first time I go through this. It didn't occur to me that this situation had the potential to be problematic as well. A quicker reply would have helped too, in putting me out of my ignorance. Anyhow, is there something I can do to help at this point? Just let me know. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caofdtxopxpfp7gr-uhjerxp_+ogry5kgohp-b42zzcrbata...@mail.gmail.com
freebsd-libs transition
[ Please CC me, not subscribed! ] Hi! We have an incoming soname bump in freebsd-libs (libusb, libusbhid, libcam and libsbuf). Should we wait until the current transition is over, or upload to unstable with the new sonames as soon as possible? -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOfDtXMUmofkpm2m+p4QPDPv0g=qv7apcyk_eb-hn9x+ars...@mail.gmail.com
excuses.php claims zfsutils is out of date
excuses.php claims zfsutils is out of date but this isn't true. zfsutils removed a few binary packages recently, these are not out of date, they just aren't meant to be present anymore: http://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=zfsutils Will this prevent migration? -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOfDtXPeKdN2vMzMDQ0KVQUbhm7hFA=+fwp9tabff5aqj7z...@mail.gmail.com
Re: excuses.php claims zfsutils is out of date
2011/12/11 Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org: See NBS on http://wiki.debian.org/ftpmaster_Removals If you are in a hurry and can't wait for the semi-automatic decruft sessions, file a bug to get them removed. Thanks. I just filed a bug on ftp.d.o. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOfDtXMaBj4zejya2q5=rjhngwmcha4tgc52lb1fatcfhco...@mail.gmail.com
RM: gpe-shield/testing [kfreebsd-i386 kfreebsd-amd64] -- ANAIS; Linux-specific
I believe manual removal of kfreebsd-* binaries from testing is needed so that gpe-shield can migrate (if that's not the case then sorry for bothering) For details, see http://bugs.debian.org/647655 -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOfDtXM=ec=9285ersk-grhpkbw8f_cy0ycvpwd8pwmazht...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RM: gpe-shield/testing [kfreebsd-i386 kfreebsd-amd64] -- ANAIS; Linux-specific
2011/12/4 Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk: On Sun, 4 Dec 2011 14:13:24 +0100, Robert Millan wrote: I believe manual removal of kfreebsd-* binaries from testing is needed so that gpe-shield can migrate (if that's not the case then sorry for bothering) For details, see http://bugs.debian.org/647655 Close - manual removal of kfreebsd-* binaries from unstable would be needed. For that, you'll need to report a bug against ftp.d.o as normal. Doing that now. Thanks. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOfDtXPM0qYxq=v0E08WwuZap1v51os=cTFS9NrpsQ3CSKJ=6...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Building kernel udebs from kfreebsd-*
Hi Philipp, 2011/11/5 Philipp Kern pk...@debian.org: Would there be a volunteer to implement that for kFreeBSD too? It could be as easy as calling kernel-wedge post-build, but at least for linux-2.6 changes to kernel-wedge were necessary[1]. Nice idea and thanks for the tip. I implemented this for kfreebsd-10 (being uploaded as I write). For kfreebsd-9 maybe it's better to wait a few days since it'll have to go through NEW soon (upstream 9.0 release). And for kfreebsd-8 it would interfere with TERM=xterm transition (see #647672), I'd rather not touch it for now. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caofdtxnusrgwdidzmkg6hk+r_zvoo1sbynwpwv6n9-npiy0...@mail.gmail.com
Re: ruby1.9.1 migration to testing
2011/10/23 Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net: [kfreebsd] waitpid from threads problem [...] [kfreebsd] thread-related hangs FYI Petr has been working on a cleaner solution from Glibc side, see: http://lists.debian.org/debian-bsd/2011/09/msg00072.html -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOfDtXOwc1hSgicMtBcT=mpSkM6qpVaM11sk+L7sUYBK=86...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#633561: kfreebsd-i386 d-i/squeeze FTBFS (was Re: Bug#633561: pu: package kfreebsd-8/8.1+dfsg-8+squeeze1)
2011/10/6 Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org:
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 07:20:50 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
Attached patch should fix the problem. I can upload a fixed
kfreebsd-8 this evening (feel free to NMU if someone has time to
verify earlier than that).
What's the status of that upload?
I realized the symlink in kfreebsd-8 had nothing to do with this. The
actual problem was in kernel-wedge and kfreebsd-kernel-di-i386.
I've just NMUed both packages.
Debdiffs attached.
--
Robert Millan
diff -Nru kernel-wedge-2.74+squeeze3/commands/install-files kernel-wedge-2.74+squeeze3.1/commands/install-files
--- kernel-wedge-2.74+squeeze3/commands/install-files 2011-04-05 04:45:45.0 +0200
+++ kernel-wedge-2.74+squeeze3.1/commands/install-files 2011-10-06 23:01:33.0 +0200
@@ -67,11 +67,6 @@
doit(install, -D, -m, 644,
$sourcedir/boot/kfreebsd-$installedname.gz,
debian/kernel-image-$kernelversion-$flavour-di/boot/kfreebsd$extraname.gz);
- if (-e $sourcedir/lib/modules/$kernelversion-$flavour/acpi.ko) {
- doit(install, -D, -m, 644,
-$sourcedir/lib/modules/$kernelversion-$flavour/acpi.ko,
-debian/kernel-image-$kernelversion-$flavour-di/boot/acpi$extraname.ko);
- }
}
else {
die could not find kernel image;
diff -Nru kernel-wedge-2.74+squeeze3/debian/changelog kernel-wedge-2.74+squeeze3.1/debian/changelog
--- kernel-wedge-2.74+squeeze3/debian/changelog 2011-06-22 03:09:24.0 +0200
+++ kernel-wedge-2.74+squeeze3.1/debian/changelog 2011-10-06 23:04:09.0 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+kernel-wedge (2.74+squeeze3.1) stable-proposed-updates; urgency=low
+
+ * NMU.
+ * Stop considering acpi.ko as part of the kernel for kFreeBSD.
+
+ -- Robert Millan r...@debian.org Thu, 06 Oct 2011 21:02:18 +
+
kernel-wedge (2.74+squeeze3) stable-proposed-updates; urgency=low
* scsi-extra-modules: hpsa
diff -Nru kfreebsd-kernel-di-i386-0.6/debian/changelog kfreebsd-kernel-di-i386-0.6.1/debian/changelog
--- kfreebsd-kernel-di-i386-0.6/debian/changelog 2011-01-10 15:45:57.0 +0100
+++ kfreebsd-kernel-di-i386-0.6.1/debian/changelog 2011-10-06 23:05:54.0 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+kfreebsd-kernel-di-i386 (0.6.1) stable; urgency=low
+
+ * NMU.
+ * Rebuild with latest kernel-wedge. Bump build-dependency.
+
+ -- Robert Millan r...@debian.org Thu, 06 Oct 2011 21:05:05 +
+
kfreebsd-kernel-di-i386 (0.6) unstable; urgency=low
* Build against version 8.1+dfsg-7.1.
diff -Nru kfreebsd-kernel-di-i386-0.6/debian/control kfreebsd-kernel-di-i386-0.6.1/debian/control
--- kfreebsd-kernel-di-i386-0.6/debian/control 2011-01-10 16:03:41.0 +0100
+++ kfreebsd-kernel-di-i386-0.6.1/debian/control 2011-10-06 23:06:34.0 +0200
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
Priority: optional
Maintainer: Debian Install System Team debian-b...@lists.debian.org
Uploaders: Otavio Salvador ota...@debian.org, Aurelien Jarno aure...@debian.org
-Build-Depends: kernel-wedge (= 2.66), kfreebsd-image-8.1-1-486 [kfreebsd-i386]
+Build-Depends: kernel-wedge (= 2.74+squeeze3.1), kfreebsd-image-8.1-1-486 [kfreebsd-i386]
Package: kernel-image-8.1-1-486-di
XC-Package-Type: udeb
diff -Nru kfreebsd-kernel-di-i386-0.6/debian/control.stub kfreebsd-kernel-di-i386-0.6.1/debian/control.stub
--- kfreebsd-kernel-di-i386-0.6/debian/control.stub 2010-08-23 02:02:59.0 +0200
+++ kfreebsd-kernel-di-i386-0.6.1/debian/control.stub 2011-10-06 23:04:53.0 +0200
@@ -3,4 +3,4 @@
Priority: optional
Maintainer: Debian Install System Team debian-b...@lists.debian.org
Uploaders: Otavio Salvador ota...@debian.org, Aurelien Jarno aure...@debian.org
-Build-Depends: kernel-wedge (= 2.66)
+Build-Depends: kernel-wedge (= 2.74+squeeze3.1)
Bug#633561: kfreebsd-i386 d-i/squeeze FTBFS (was Re: Bug#633561: pu: package kfreebsd-8/8.1+dfsg-8+squeeze1)
2011/10/6 Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk: Forgive my ignorance on the precise mechanics, but is it correct that the /boot/kernel/kernel.gz symlink creation was also removed? Yes, this is all curft for backward compatibility with versions of Debian GNU/kFreeBSD that have never been part of a Debian release. However, it's not the cause for this problem (see my other mail). In fact it's probably harmless, and it's gone with 8.2 anyway. I wouldn't worry about them. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOfDtXNcHrf=_6GseYRVE=+wxeqa0e8rhwedvtfvnhu4d3h...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#633561: kfreebsd-i386 d-i/squeeze FTBFS (was Re: Bug#633561: pu: package kfreebsd-8/8.1+dfsg-8+squeeze1)
2011/10/6 Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk:
test -e ./tmp/cdrom/tree/boot/zfs || rmdir ./tmp/cdrom/tree/boot/
rmdir: failed to remove `./tmp/cdrom/tree/boot/': Directory not empty
[...]
$ debdiff kernel-image-8.1-1-486-di_0.6_kfreebsd-i386.udeb
kernel-image-8.1-1-486-di_0.6+b1_kfreebsd-i386.udeb
[...]
Files in second .deb but not in first
-
-rw-r--r-- root/root /boot/acpi.ko
This appears to be due to the fact that the new kfreebsd-8 +squeeze1
kernel on -i386 builds acpi.ko as a module, which is then picked up by
existing install this module if it exists rules in kernel-wedge.
Actually, the problem is not presence of acpi.ko itself, but the fact
that a symlink to this file exists in /boot/. This is due to an old
postinst kludge from pre-GRUB time.
A quick fix would be appreciated, whether from the kfreebsd or d-i side,
given the increasingly short period of time we have remaining until the
point release is scheduled.
Attached patch should fix the problem. I can upload a fixed
kfreebsd-8 this evening (feel free to NMU if someone has time to
verify earlier than that).
--
Robert Millan
Index: debian/kfreebsd-image.postinst.in
===
--- debian/kfreebsd-image.postinst.in (revision 3716)
+++ debian/kfreebsd-image.postinst.in (working copy)
@@ -24,37 +24,6 @@
case $1 in
configure)
-# Don't do symlinks if explicitely disabled
-if [ -z $(sed -e '/^\s*do_symlinks\s*=\s*\(no\|false\|0\)\s*$/!d' $KERNEL_IMG_CONF 2/dev/null) ] ; then
-for i in kernel.gz acpi.ko ; do
-if test -e /boot/kernel/$i ! test -L /boot/kernel/$i ; then
-echo What happen!! /boot/kernel/$i exists but is not a symlink.
-exit 1
-fi
-done
-
- mkdir -p /boot/kernel
-
-if [ $(readlink -f /boot/kernel/kernel.gz) != /boot/kfreebsd-$RELEASE.gz ] ; then
-rm -f /boot/kernel/kernel.old.gz
-if [ -L /boot/kernel/kernel.gz ] ; then
-mv /boot/kernel/kernel.gz /boot/kernel/kernel.old.gz
-fi
-ln -s /boot/kfreebsd-$RELEASE.gz /boot/kernel/kernel.gz
-fi
-
-# on i386 acpi MUST be within kfreebsd-loader reach
-if [ ${RELEASE%%-[456]86} != ${RELEASE} ] ; then
-if [ $(readlink -f /boot/kernel/acpi.ko) != /lib/modules/$RELEASE/acpi.ko ] ; then
-rm -f /boot/kernel/acpi.ko.old
-if [ -L /boot/kernel/acpi.ko ] ; then
-mv /boot/kernel/acpi.ko /boot/kernel/acpi.ko.old
-fi
-ln -s /lib/modules/$RELEASE/acpi.ko /boot/kernel/acpi.ko
-fi
-fi
-fi
-
# Sanitize and quote maintainer script parameters
for p in $@; do
q=$(echo $p | sed -e s/'/'\\''/g)
Bug#633561: kfreebsd-i386 d-i/squeeze FTBFS (was Re: Bug#633561: pu: package kfreebsd-8/8.1+dfsg-8+squeeze1)
2011/10/6 Philipp Kern pk...@debian.org: That said, this needs to be fixed, and we're all not very happy, given the fact that we actually did ask before if something changes in the udeb output. I have to say in my defense that I did check for changes in udeb output. However these changes don't happen on my arch (kfreebsd-amd64), as they're i386-specific. I admit I should have checked both. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caofdtxn4+mlaehtgr8y3nyqru8sh-hgrxcm-l3fp58vyqaf...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#633561: pu: package kfreebsd-8/8.1+dfsg-8+squeeze1
2011/10/2 Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk: If I'd been sure that binNMUs would work then we could have scheduled them directly; the previous uploads have all been sourceful, so I assumed there was a reason for that. In any case, I've flagged the uploads for acceptance at the next dinstall. I notice they've been installed. Thanks! -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caofdtxp4a4aqrc7-hwqr-krskhjrbkjehrsvj3uaflmszpf...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#633561: pu: package kfreebsd-8/8.1+dfsg-8+squeeze1
2011/10/1 Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk: If there are changes which need propagating to the udebs Yes. The if_msk update is specially important for the installer. If the aim is to do that for 6.0.3 then those uploads need to happen within the next day, or they'll miss the cut-off. I've uploaded a BinNMU for both packages. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOfDtXPW77aouTqOvyC=vpfjhhvmvpg53+eg0npoioy6t4-...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#633561: pu: package kfreebsd-8/8.1+dfsg-8+squeeze1
2011/10/1 Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk: Please go ahead, bearing in mind that the upload window for the Squeeze point release closes over this weekend. Uploaded. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOfDtXPHJSqEcWKeeiQ3=eag2ympkn0mcjxc_ohxyu9ptjn...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#633561: pu: package kfreebsd-8/8.1+dfsg-8+squeeze1
2011/10/1 Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk: On Sat, 2011-10-01 at 12:23 +0200, Robert Millan wrote: 2011/10/1 Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk: Please go ahead, bearing in mind that the upload window for the Squeeze point release closes over this weekend. Uploaded. Flagged for acceptance at the next dinstall; thanks. Thank you. Btw, how do we go about propagating this to kfreebsd-kernel-di-*? -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOfDtXNrTHjp=ecqgk5m1n5vbprqiakpckfdtt2pdcbk-ep...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Backporting ZFS installer support to kreebsd
2011/10/1 Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk: If you mean in to 6.0.3, is there any particular benefit to trying to push that particular update at this late stage in the process, given that the partman-* changes won't be included? I didn't know if D-I followed the same release cycle. Given your reply, now I assume it does. Might it not make more sense to look at the remaining changes as a set for 6.0.4? Sure, we can get back to this later. Thanks -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOfDtXN9a8royOFFOTgzhPxppX9R2n+bX=v+3s4h5wr9o09...@mail.gmail.com
