Re: RFS: macaulay2 1.17.1 (again)

[Torrance, Douglas]

On 1/27/21 5:24 AM, Nilesh Patra wrote:
ppc64el worked this time, however there are still build issues on 
mipsel, both the failing logs are identical.

Is it a real failure or are we again getting unlucky?


It's a real failure, I think, and it's also an issue on the riscv64 
build.  The mipsel build isn't blocking transition to testing, so I'm 
not worrying about it for now.  I've reported it upstream and maybe 
we'll get it fixed on the next upload, after the freeze.


Thanks again for all your help!

Doug





OpenPGP_0xD12B2BE26D3FF663.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: RFS: macaulay2 1.17.1 (again)

[Nilesh Patra]

Hi again,

On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 at 21:23, Nilesh Patra  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 at 18:03, Torrance, Douglas 
> wrote:
>
>> Thank you!
>>
>> Unfortunately, the second ppc64el build failed, too.  :(  [1] Would it
>> be possible to give it back again?  I think we're just getting unlucky
>> with the builds for some reason.  There doesn't appear to be anything
>> architecture-specific preventing it from building.  For example, the
>> corresponding build for Ubuntu 21.04 worked just fine [2].  And right
>> now, this is the only thing blocking this package from migrating to
>> testing.
>>
>
> Done, both for ppc64el and mipsel (where it wasn't working as well).
> Hopefully should work this time.
>

ppc64el worked this time, however there are still build issues on mipsel,
both the failing logs are identical.
Is it a real failure or are we again getting unlucky?

Nilesh

Re: RFS: macaulay2 1.17.1 (again)

[Nilesh Patra]

On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 at 18:03, Torrance, Douglas 
wrote:

> Thank you!
>
> Unfortunately, the second ppc64el build failed, too.  :(  [1] Would it
> be possible to give it back again?  I think we're just getting unlucky
> with the builds for some reason.  There doesn't appear to be anything
> architecture-specific preventing it from building.  For example, the
> corresponding build for Ubuntu 21.04 worked just fine [2].  And right
> now, this is the only thing blocking this package from migrating to
> testing.
>

Done, both for ppc64el and mipsel (where it wasn't working as well).
Hopefully should work this time.

Nilesh

Re: RFS: macaulay2 1.17.1 (again)

[Torrance, Douglas]

On 1/26/21 12:50 AM, Nilesh Patra wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 at 00:06, Torrance, Douglas > wrote:

The ppc64el build (which also usually isn't a problem) has also failed
[2], if you or anyone else would be willing to give that back, too.  :)


Done

You are authenticated as gi-boi-guest. ✓
Working on package macaulay2, suite sid and architecture ppc64el. ✓
Package version 1.17.1+ds-2 in state Build-Attempted, can be given back. ✓
Successfully given back the package. ✓


Thank you!

Unfortunately, the second ppc64el build failed, too.  :(  [1] Would it 
be possible to give it back again?  I think we're just getting unlucky 
with the builds for some reason.  There doesn't appear to be anything 
architecture-specific preventing it from building.  For example, the 
corresponding build for Ubuntu 21.04 worked just fine [2].  And right 
now, this is the only thing blocking this package from migrating to testing.





 >         I tried to request a giveback, but I'm not a member of
the "debian"
 >         Salsa group.  Would someone else be able to request one (or
 >         maybe, if
 >         possible, add me to the group)?
 >
 >
 >     You mean this[1]?
 >     I presume only a DD gets access to it.
 >
 >     [1]: https://salsa.debian.org/debian
 >
 >
 >     Please let me know if you meant something else and/or I messed up
 >     something by any chance.


Apparently non-DD's can be granted access through sponsorship [3].


Yes, but it's written: " Access should be granted to single projects and 
not the whole Debian group."


When I click on the "giveback" link, I get the following message:

You need to be in the "debian" group for now. ✗

I failed to read the part about access only being granted to single 
projects, so I guess the restriction to being in the "debian" group must 
mean that someone must be a DD to request a giveback anyway.  So never 
mind.  :)


There's no macaulay2 project in https://salsa.debian.org/debian 
 namespace that I could grant access 
for, it's under science team namespace right?


That's correct.

Thanks again!
Doug

[1] 
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=macaulay2=ppc64el=1.17.1%2Bds-2=1611644257=0
[2] 
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/macaulay2/1.17.1+ds-2/+build/20934325


OpenPGP_0xD12B2BE26D3FF663.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: RFS: macaulay2 1.17.1 (again)

[Nilesh Patra]

On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 at 00:06, Torrance, Douglas 
wrote:

> On 1/25/21 1:21 PM, Nilesh Patra wrote:
> >
> > [CCing my reply to the list, which I mistakenly missed to do earlier]
> >
> > On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 23:50, Nilesh Patra  > > wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 23:44, Torrance, Douglas
> > mailto:dtorra...@piedmont.edu>> wrote:
> > Unfortunately, the i386 build has already failed. :( [1] I think
> > this is
> > an isolated incident, as I've built it on i386 regularly in the
> > past.
> >
> >
> > I did so, and get the output as:
> >
> > You are authenticated as gi-boi-guest. ✓
> > Working on package macaulay2, suite sid and architecture i386. ✓
> > Package version 1.17.1+ds-2 in state Build-Attempted, can be given
> back. ✓
> > Successfully given back the package. ✓
> >
> > I suppose that's what you asked for?
>
> Yes, exactly -- thank you!
>
> The ppc64el build (which also usually isn't a problem) has also failed
> [2], if you or anyone else would be willing to give that back, too.  :)
>

Done

You are authenticated as gi-boi-guest. ✓
Working on package macaulay2, suite sid and architecture ppc64el. ✓
Package version 1.17.1+ds-2 in state Build-Attempted, can be given back. ✓
Successfully given back the package. ✓



>
> > I tried to request a giveback, but I'm not a member of the
> "debian"
> > Salsa group.  Would someone else be able to request one (or
> > maybe, if
> > possible, add me to the group)?
> >
> >
> > You mean this[1]?
> > I presume only a DD gets access to it.
> >
> > [1]: https://salsa.debian.org/debian <
> https://salsa.debian.org/debian>
> >
> > Please let me know if you meant something else and/or I messed up
> > something by any chance.
>
>
> Apparently non-DD's can be granted access through sponsorship [3].
>

Yes, but it's written: " Access should be granted to single projects and
not the whole Debian group."
There's no macaulay2 project in https://salsa.debian.org/debian namespace
that I could grant access for, it's under science team namespace right?

Do I miss something?

Nilesh

Re: RFS: macaulay2 1.17.1 (again)

[Torrance, Douglas]

On 1/25/21 1:21 PM, Nilesh Patra wrote:


[CCing my reply to the list, which I mistakenly missed to do earlier]

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 23:50, Nilesh Patra > wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 23:44, Torrance, Douglas
mailto:dtorra...@piedmont.edu>> wrote:
Unfortunately, the i386 build has already failed. :( [1] I think
this is
an isolated incident, as I've built it on i386 regularly in the
past.


I did so, and get the output as:

You are authenticated as gi-boi-guest. ✓
Working on package macaulay2, suite sid and architecture i386. ✓
Package version 1.17.1+ds-2 in state Build-Attempted, can be given back. ✓
Successfully given back the package. ✓

I suppose that's what you asked for?


Yes, exactly -- thank you!

The ppc64el build (which also usually isn't a problem) has also failed 
[2], if you or anyone else would be willing to give that back, too.  :)



I tried to request a giveback, but I'm not a member of the "debian"
Salsa group.  Would someone else be able to request one (or
maybe, if
possible, add me to the group)?


You mean this[1]?
I presume only a DD gets access to it.

[1]: https://salsa.debian.org/debian 

Please let me know if you meant something else and/or I messed up
something by any chance.



Apparently non-DD's can be granted access through sponsorship [3].

Doug

[2] 
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=macaulay2=ppc64el=1.17.1%2Bds-2=1611598660=0
[3] 
https://wiki.debian.org/Salsa/Doc#Collaborative_Maintenance:_.22Debian.22_group


OpenPGP_0xD12B2BE26D3FF663.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: RFS: macaulay2 1.17.1 (again)

[Nilesh Patra]

[CCing my reply to the list, which I mistakenly missed to do earlier]

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 23:50, Nilesh Patra  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 23:44, Torrance, Douglas 
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/24/21 3:54 PM, Doug Torrance wrote:
>> > Unfortunately, macaulay2 hasn't migrated to testing yet due to an
>> > autopkgtest regression in i386 and armhf.
>> >
>> > I believe I've fixed the issue (and a few others that were causing
>> build
>> > failures on other architectures).  Would anyone be able to
>> review/sponsor?
>> > https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/macaulay2
>>
>> Thanks, Anton, for sponsoring!
>>
>> Unfortunately, the i386 build has already failed. :( [1] I think this is
>> an isolated incident, as I've built it on i386 regularly in the past.
>>
>
> I did so, and get the output as:
>
> You are authenticated as gi-boi-guest. ✓
> Working on package macaulay2, suite sid and architecture i386. ✓
> Package version 1.17.1+ds-2 in state Build-Attempted, can be given back. ✓
> Successfully given back the package. ✓
>
> I suppose that's what you asked for?
>
>>
>> I tried to request a giveback, but I'm not a member of the "debian"
>> Salsa group.  Would someone else be able to request one (or maybe, if
>> possible, add me to the group)?
>>
>
> You mean this[1]?
> I presume only a DD gets access to it.
>
> [1]: https://salsa.debian.org/debian
>
> Please let me know if you meant something else and/or I messed up
> something by any chance.
>
> Nilesh
>

Re: RFS: macaulay2 1.17.1 (again)

[Torrance, Douglas]

On 1/24/21 3:54 PM, Doug Torrance wrote:
Unfortunately, macaulay2 hasn't migrated to testing yet due to an 
autopkgtest regression in i386 and armhf.


I believe I've fixed the issue (and a few others that were causing build 
failures on other architectures).  Would anyone be able to review/sponsor?

https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/macaulay2


Thanks, Anton, for sponsoring!

Unfortunately, the i386 build has already failed. :( [1] I think this is 
an isolated incident, as I've built it on i386 regularly in the past.


I tried to request a giveback, but I'm not a member of the "debian" 
Salsa group.  Would someone else be able to request one (or maybe, if 
possible, add me to the group)?


Thanks!
Doug

[1] 
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=macaulay2=i386=1.17.1%2Bds-2=1611597864=0


OpenPGP_0xD12B2BE26D3FF663.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

RFS: macaulay2 1.17.1 (again)

[Torrance, Douglas]

Unfortunately, macaulay2 hasn't migrated to testing yet due to an 
autopkgtest regression in i386 and armhf.


I believe I've fixed the issue (and a few others that were causing build 
failures on other architectures).  Would anyone be able to review/sponsor?

https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/macaulay2

Thanks!
Doug



OpenPGP_0xD12B2BE26D3FF663.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature