Re: Getting the buildds to notice new architectures in a package
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 02:40:28PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote: Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message There is no such general solution. See http://www.debian.org/devel/buildd/wanna-build-states#not-for-us That says: However, wanna-build does not look at the control file of a package when creating its database; only at the packages' name and section, its urgency, and its priority. Shouldn't wanna-build use the control file? Perhaps. The issue is that wanna-build needs to know whether a package has already been built for its architecture; one can only find that out by looking at the Packages file, and comparing that with the Sources file. Since the Packages and Sources files contain all the information wanna-build needs (except for the architectures for which a build should be attempted), and since fetching the control files is a _lot_ more work than to write a parser for Packages and Sources files which can just be piped into wanna-build, it isn't done. Also, such a thing would probably require quite some I/O, so I'm not entirely sure it's worth it. But if you could write some patch which does not ever break and which allows to read the control file, I'm sure it'll be welcome. (I'm not sure why it still listed upload urgency as a criterion there -- that's a bug in the documentation that I introduced, but it's never been true. I've just committed a fix) It would then mean that the lists of packages-arch-specific would not be needed, except in the case of a single version override in the event that a package's control file accidentally listed an architecture on which it is not supported, or failed to list an architecture on which it is supported. The latter wouldn't work anyway -- if it isn't supported, dpkg-buildpackage refuses to build the package. Two things: - control files are part of the source. w-b would have to download and unpack every source package to get that file. - control files can be auto generated during build (e.g. glibc) and might not even list the packages and architectures If you want to get rid of the P-a-s file then I suggest you work on fixing the Architecture field in the Sources file to truely reflect the architectures the source should be build for. What you have to worry about is the case of architecture specific sources that also have architecture independent packages. In those cases the Architecture field lists any instead of e.g. i386 amd64 all. If you fix that and allow sources to override the Architecture field (for autogenerated control files like glibc) then the Sources.gz file would have all the right information in the normal case. This would cut down the P-a-s list seriously. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Getting the buildds to notice new architectures in a package
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 05:53:25AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: The buildd package could just be a central hub where two or three knowlegable people sift through the bug reports and then distribute it to the affected/responsible person. Who would you suggest would do that? I know it's not going to be me. Make a job description, sign it and post it to debian-devel-announce and the jobs page. If there is no volunteer that is it. Otherwise you have your person. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Getting the buildds to notice new architectures in a package
On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 09:56:22AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Two things: - control files are part of the source. w-b would have to download and unpack every source package to get that file. Exactly. - control files can be auto generated during build (e.g. glibc) and might not even list the packages and architectures Well, yeah, but if that changes anything about the control file that is of importance (like supported architectures or package names), then this information is quite blatantly ignored. And the build may fail. -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, Ashes to Ashes, stardate 53679.4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Getting the buildds to notice new architectures in a package
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 09:56:22AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Two things: - control files are part of the source. w-b would have to download and unpack every source package to get that file. Exactly. - control files can be auto generated during build (e.g. glibc) and might not even list the packages and architectures Well, yeah, but if that changes anything about the control file that is of importance (like supported architectures or package names), then this information is quite blatantly ignored. And the build may fail. Aeh, the only part that MUST not change is the source entry in debian/control. Any binary entry is afaik only used by tools forked from debian/rules (usualy dh_*). If you create the binary entries before you use them then everything works. Look at glibc for an example. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Getting the buildds to notice new architectures in a package
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 05:53:25AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: The buildd package could just be a central hub where two or three knowlegable people sift through the bug reports and then distribute it to the affected/responsible person. Who would you suggest would do that? I know it's not going to be me. -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, Ashes to Ashes, stardate 53679.4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Getting the buildds to notice new architectures in a package
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 10:55:32PM +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote: Where should I ask for help? Neither buildd.debian.org nor www.debian.org/devel/buildd, mention where the buildd admins can be reached; and lists.debian.org does not have a buildd@ list. [EMAIL PROTECTED]. I just committed a change to the wanna-build-states page to that effect. I will upload ~20 source packages in the next few weeks, adding support for more architectures to each package. So I'm really looking for a general solution and not one that only applies to asis. There is no such general solution. See http://www.debian.org/devel/buildd/wanna-build-states#not-for-us That says: However, wanna-build does not look at the control file of a package when creating its database; only at the packages' name and section, its urgency, and its priority. Shouldn't wanna-build use the control file? It would then mean that the lists of packages-arch-specific would not be needed, except in the case of a single version override in the event that a package's control file accidentally listed an architecture on which it is not supported, or failed to list an architecture on which it is supported. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Getting the buildds to notice new architectures in a package
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 02:40:28PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote: Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message There is no such general solution. See http://www.debian.org/devel/buildd/wanna-build-states#not-for-us That says: However, wanna-build does not look at the control file of a package when creating its database; only at the packages' name and section, its urgency, and its priority. Shouldn't wanna-build use the control file? Perhaps. The issue is that wanna-build needs to know whether a package has already been built for its architecture; one can only find that out by looking at the Packages file, and comparing that with the Sources file. Since the Packages and Sources files contain all the information wanna-build needs (except for the architectures for which a build should be attempted), and since fetching the control files is a _lot_ more work than to write a parser for Packages and Sources files which can just be piped into wanna-build, it isn't done. Also, such a thing would probably require quite some I/O, so I'm not entirely sure it's worth it. But if you could write some patch which does not ever break and which allows to read the control file, I'm sure it'll be welcome. (I'm not sure why it still listed upload urgency as a criterion there -- that's a bug in the documentation that I introduced, but it's never been true. I've just committed a fix) It would then mean that the lists of packages-arch-specific would not be needed, except in the case of a single version override in the event that a package's control file accidentally listed an architecture on which it is not supported, or failed to list an architecture on which it is supported. The latter wouldn't work anyway -- if it isn't supported, dpkg-buildpackage refuses to build the package. -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, Ashes to Ashes, stardate 53679.4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Getting the buildds to notice new architectures in a package
On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 10:55:32PM +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote: I will upload ~20 source packages in the next few weeks, adding support for more architectures to each package. So I'm really looking for a general solution and not one that only applies to asis. Why aren't those packages arch:any? asis neither uses any hardware devices, nor appears to have assembly code anywhere inside. -- 1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor: // Never attribute to stupidity what can be // adequately explained by malice. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Getting the buildds to notice new architectures in a package
On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 10:55:32PM +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote: Where should I ask for help? Neither buildd.debian.org nor www.debian.org/devel/buildd, mention where the buildd admins can be reached; and lists.debian.org does not have a buildd@ list. [EMAIL PROTECTED]. I just committed a change to the wanna-build-states page to that effect. I will upload ~20 source packages in the next few weeks, adding support for more architectures to each package. So I'm really looking for a general solution and not one that only applies to asis. There is no such general solution. See http://www.debian.org/devel/buildd/wanna-build-states#not-for-us -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, Ashes to Ashes, stardate 53679.4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Getting the buildds to notice new architectures in a package
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 10:55:32PM +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote: Where should I ask for help? Neither buildd.debian.org nor www.debian.org/devel/buildd, mention where the buildd admins can be reached; and lists.debian.org does not have a buildd@ list. [EMAIL PROTECTED]. I just committed a change to the wanna-build-states page to that effect. Thanks; I was aware of these, but the problem was not with any one architecture in particular; it was with Packages-arch-specific. Luk Claes pointed me to it, and I've submitted a request to the admins. (BTW, thanks, Luk.) It would perhaps be a good idea to mention the existence of Package-arch-specific, how it works, and who admins it on the buildd.debian.org front page, don't you think? Also, I would propose that a list, [EMAIL PROTECTED], or even better, a pseudo-package, buildd, be created for such issues. buildd would complement ftp.debian.org as a central place for buildd-related requests. I will upload ~20 source packages in the next few weeks, adding support for more architectures to each package. So I'm really looking for a general solution and not one that only applies to asis. There is no such general solution. See http://www.debian.org/devel/buildd/wanna-build-states#not-for-us Thanks. I had already read that. It says: ! A package in not-for-us or packages-arch-specific will not leave ! this state automatically; if your package specifically excluded a ! given architecture in its control file previously, but now includes ! more architectures, it must be manually requeued. But it does not say how I should go about reque manually. -- Ludovic Brenta. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Getting the buildds to notice new architectures in a package
On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 06:31:56PM +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote: Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 10:55:32PM +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote: Where should I ask for help? Neither buildd.debian.org nor www.debian.org/devel/buildd, mention where the buildd admins can be reached; and lists.debian.org does not have a buildd@ list. [EMAIL PROTECTED]. I just committed a change to the wanna-build-states page to that effect. Thanks; I was aware of these, but the problem was not with any one architecture in particular; it was with Packages-arch-specific. There is a large overlap between the maintainers of packages-arch-specific and the buildd maintainers. This is only normal, since p-a-s exists only to the benefit of buildd... Luk Claes pointed me to it, and I've submitted a request to the admins. (BTW, thanks, Luk.) It would perhaps be a good idea to mention the existence of Package-arch-specific, how it works, and who admins it on the buildd.debian.org front page, don't you think? No. Buildd.debian.org is an interface which shows build logs to non-buildd people (us buildd maintainers get relevant logs in our mailboxes around the time they appear on buildd.d.o anyway). It is not the place where buildd is documented, nor should it be; there are other places for that. (it *might* be a good idea for buildd.d.o to point to the relevant documentation, but you need to talk to Ryan Murray to get that :-) Also, I would propose that a list, [EMAIL PROTECTED], or even better, a pseudo-package, buildd, be created for such issues. buildd would complement ftp.debian.org as a central place for buildd-related requests. This has been proposed before. It would only work if buildd maintainers agree to use it. Personally, I feel that a generic buildd list for all architectures is a bit over the top (there is rarely ever need for that, it would probably only be abused (intentionally or otherwise) by people who don't need to contact all buildd maintainers anyway). I will upload ~20 source packages in the next few weeks, adding support for more architectures to each package. So I'm really looking for a general solution and not one that only applies to asis. There is no such general solution. See http://www.debian.org/devel/buildd/wanna-build-states#not-for-us Thanks. I had already read that. It says: ! A package in not-for-us or packages-arch-specific will not leave ! this state automatically; if your package specifically excluded a ! given architecture in its control file previously, but now includes ! more architectures, it must be manually requeued. But it does not say how I should go about reque manually. Yes, that's the change I have just committed ($arch@). Some architectures do still use not-for-us rather than p-a-s. It's better to use the latter (since it isn't arch-speicific), but if hasn't been used, then it doesn't help to contact a p-a-s maintainer, since he may not be able to get the package in the needs-build state. That's why I suggeted contacting the relevant buildd maintainer. -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, Ashes to Ashes, stardate 53679.4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Getting the buildds to notice new architectures in a package
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 06:31:56PM +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote: Also, I would propose that a list, [EMAIL PROTECTED], or even better, a pseudo-package, buildd, be created for such issues. buildd would complement ftp.debian.org as a central place for buildd-related requests. This has been proposed before. It would only work if buildd maintainers agree to use it. Personally, I feel that a generic buildd list for all architectures is a bit over the top (there is rarely ever need for that, it would probably only be abused (intentionally or otherwise) by people who don't need to contact all buildd maintainers anyway). The buildd package could just be a central hub where two or three knowlegable people sift through the bug reports and then distribute it to the affected/responsible person. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Getting the buildds to notice new architectures in a package
Hello, Package asis (=3.15p-10) supports i386, kfreebsd-i386, sparc, and powerpc. I uploaded the next version (=2005-3) a couple of days ago. It adds support for more architectures, namely: amd63, hppa, and ia64. I notice that the buildds have successfully built the powerpc and sparc packages, but seem to ignore the new architectures. I am waiting for all architectures to be rebuilt so that I can re-upload adacontrol, which build-depends on asis. In the mean time, adacontrol has a RC bug #378160 because of this problem. Where should I ask for help? Neither buildd.debian.org nor www.debian.org/devel/buildd, mention where the buildd admins can be reached; and lists.debian.org does not have a buildd@ list. I will upload ~20 source packages in the next few weeks, adding support for more architectures to each package. So I'm really looking for a general solution and not one that only applies to asis. Thanks for any help. PS. Please reply to me directly, as well as to the list. -- Ludovic Brenta. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Getting the buildds to notice new architectures in a package
Ludovic Brenta wrote: Hello, Hi Ludovic Package asis (=3.15p-10) supports i386, kfreebsd-i386, sparc, and powerpc. I uploaded the next version (=2005-3) a couple of days ago. It adds support for more architectures, namely: amd63, hppa, and ia64. You should contact the buildd maintainers (actually the Packages-arch-specific maintainers [1]) when you add support for an architecture. I notice that the buildds have successfully built the powerpc and sparc packages, but seem to ignore the new architectures. I am waiting for all architectures to be rebuilt so that I can re-upload adacontrol, which build-depends on asis. In the mean time, adacontrol has a RC bug #378160 because of this problem. Where should I ask for help? Neither buildd.debian.org nor www.debian.org/devel/buildd, mention where the buildd admins can be reached; and lists.debian.org does not have a buildd@ list. arch@buildd.debian.org is the way buildd admins can be reached. I will upload ~20 source packages in the next few weeks, adding support for more architectures to each package. So I'm really looking for a general solution and not one that only applies to asis. This is already known by the Release Team, I'm not sure if the news has already reached the P-a-s maintainers... PS. Please reply to me directly, as well as to the list. Ok. Cheers Luk [1] These maintainers are listed at the top of the file http://cvs.debian.org/srcdep/Packages-arch-specific?cvsroot=dak -- Luk Claes - http://people.debian.org/~luk - GPG key 1024D/9B7C328D Fingerprint: D5AF 25FB 316B 53BB 08E7 F999 E544 DE07 9B7C 328D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
