On Sat, 8 Nov 2014, Stuart Prescott wrote:
UDD can help with this.
A list of source packages that have M-A: same binary packages in jessie that
have different versions in any two release architectures is at:
Can we do this for the triplet (i386, amd64, x32) too, please?
Yes, it’s not a
Hi!
On Sun, 2014-11-09 at 17:18:10 +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
Quoting Ralf Treinen (2014-11-09 15:58:15)
Interesting, I did not know this. Is this documented somewhere? I just
looked
through apt-get(1) man page and couldn't find it there.
it should definitely be documented in
On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 12:39:41PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi Ralf,
On Freitag, 7. November 2014, Ralf Treinen wrote:
The issue of architecture=all packages that
are not installable on some architecture can IMHO not be solved with
our current setup which makes architectures=all
Hi,
Quoting Ralf Treinen (2014-11-09 15:58:15)
On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 06:41:24AM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
Dpkg and apt allow this just fine. Try to do:
apt-get install --simulate gcc-4.9-arm-linux-gnueabihf
And you will end up with a number of armhf packages on your system
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 05:18:10PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
Ah okay! Somehow I misunderstood your initial email that you wanted to say:
Depends: foo:i386, foo:amd64, ..., bar:i386, bar:amd64,...
But instead you just want...
Depends: foo:i386, foo:amd64, ...
...in
Hi,
Quoting Ralf Treinen (2014-11-09 18:05:15)
But this does only one co-installability check at a time, right ?
correct, this makes your solution the better choice.
Anyway, the script is very simple (attached).
Nifty! I didn't know that dose-debcheck can read from stdin!
The raw result of
+++ Marc Glisse [2014-11-01 11:45 +0100]:
A few random packages that currently have an inconsistent version:
zlib1g (+b1 on ppc64el)
examining this I notice that whilst this page on p.d.o:
https://packages.debian.org/jessie/zlib1g
shows the issue, and so does this buildd one (for unstable):
+++ Wookey [2014-11-01 14:19 +]:
+++ Marc Glisse [2014-11-01 11:45 +0100]:
Hello,
sorry for the naive question, but is there a plan for massively
rebuilding all Multi-Arch: same packages that have inconsistent
version numbers across architectures before releasing Jessie?
I am
Hi,
Dpkg and apt allow this just fine. Try to do:
apt-get install --simulate gcc-4.9-arm-linux-gnueabihf
And you will end up with a number of armhf packages on your system (you have
to
enable armhf beforehand of course).
Interesting, I didn't know that syntax is already supported. As
Hi,
On Freitag, 7. November 2014, Johannes Schauer wrote:
is jenkins not triggered by pushes to git and thus sub-optimal for jobs
that should be run like a cron job?
jenkins can be triggered by many things, currently jobs on jenkins.d.n are
triggered
- time based
- VCS commit based
- after
Hi,
On Samstag, 8. November 2014, Stuart Prescott wrote:
UDD can help with this.
of course! :-)
A list of source packages that have M-A: same binary packages in jessie
that have different versions in any two release architectures is at:
http://debian.nanonanonano.net/qa/maskew
Hi Ralf,
On Freitag, 7. November 2014, Ralf Treinen wrote:
The bad weather in
https://qa.debian.org/dose/debcheck/testing_main/index.html is still
surprising to see, at this point...
not at all ! The weather icons are a bit misleading (this is one reason
why I wasn't such a big fan of
Hi,
On Samstag, 8. November 2014, Holger Levsen wrote:
It would be trivial to turn this into a jenkins jobs, shall I?
It seems to me, there could be several other UDD querying jobs as well, so
my first suggestion for a name (+namespace) would be
udd_multiarch_inconsistencies... suggestions
Hi Holger,
On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 15:12:42 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi,
On Samstag, 8. November 2014, Holger Levsen wrote:
It would be trivial to turn this into a jenkins jobs, shall I?
It seems to me, there could be several other UDD querying jobs as well, so
my first suggestion
Hi Michael,
On Samstag, 8. November 2014, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
Have you considered running a groovy script instead of an external shell
script? This may make things easier
not really, as I'm not at all groovy with groovy, IOW, I hardly know what it
is :)
/avoid the external script
Hi Ralf,
On Mittwoch, 5. November 2014, Ralf Treinen wrote:
yes, you did miss something :-)
first link on the page: Non-installable packages
https://qa.debian.org/dose/debcheck/unstable_main/index.html
thanks! (+doh, I guessed I oversaw these links on the debcheck pages and then
didnt find
Hi Holger,
Quoting Holger Levsen (2014-11-07 15:46:31)
On Mittwoch, 5. November 2014, Ralf Treinen wrote:
yes, you did miss something :-)
first link on the page: Non-installable packages
https://qa.debian.org/dose/debcheck/unstable_main/index.html
thanks! (+doh, I guessed I oversaw
Hi Johannes,
On Freitag, 7. November 2014, Johannes Schauer wrote:
but was your original question not about debcheck checking for multiarch
co-installability across architectures?
yes, this was just a btw-question on the side...
I agree with Ralf, that this would best be done not by
Hi Holger,
Quoting Holger Levsen (2014-11-07 16:31:09)
I agree with Ralf, that this would best be done not by debcheck but by a
small script which compares if the Packages files for all distributions
ship M-A:same packages in the same version.
I'd happily run this script on
Hi Holger,
(repliying separately to the two pointes raised by you)
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 02:46:31PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
On Mittwoch, 5. November 2014, Ralf Treinen wrote:
yes, you did miss something :-)
first link on the page: Non-installable packages
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 02:46:31PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
2) if you ask about co-installablity of packages with the same name but
different architectictures (and which are M-A=same) : this is a completely
different (and much more interesting) question. Since dose is now
multi-arch
+++ Ralf Treinen [2014-11-07 17:35 +0100]:
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 02:46:31PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
For this reason we should probably limit ourselves to all the interesting
cases of combinations of native and foreign architectures. The only
reasonable combination that I can currently
UDD can help with this.
A list of source packages that have M-A: same binary packages in jessie that
have different versions in any two release architectures is at:
http://debian.nanonanonano.net/qa/maskew
There are currently 247 source packages in that list (assuming I've not done
Hi,
Quoting Ralf Treinen (2014-11-07 17:35:06)
It just appeared to me that we probably do not have a syntax to pinpoint a
package built for a specific architecture. We meaning in this case dpkg,
apt, and dose (if I am not mistaken).
No. We do have it.
The usual trick in dose would be, for
Hi,
indeed I forgot about multiarch... and I ment that non-installibility is a bug
for sure (though just a sympton of the real bug), but often packages can still
be installed even though the versions of a package differs due to binNMUs.
Andway - more to the point:
(leaving full context for
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 04:22:06PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
(also, btw, I couldn't find the daily DOSE runs linked from
tttps://qa.debian.org/dose - did I miss it or is it missing?)
yes, you did miss something :-)
first link on the page: Non-installable packages
then you choose
Hello,
sorry for the naive question, but is there a plan for massively rebuilding
all Multi-Arch: same packages that have inconsistent version numbers
across architectures before releasing Jessie?
I understand that in testing or unstable, rebuilding for all platforms
every time a single one
Hi Marc,
On Samstag, 1. November 2014, Marc Glisse wrote:
sorry for the naive question, but is there a plan for massively rebuilding
all Multi-Arch: same packages that have inconsistent version numbers
across architectures before releasing Jessie?
[...]
A few random packages that currently
On 11/01/2014 at 07:38 AM, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi Marc,
On Samstag, 1. November 2014, Marc Glisse wrote:
sorry for the naive question, but is there a plan for massively
rebuilding all Multi-Arch: same packages that have inconsistent
version numbers across architectures before releasing
On Sat, 1 Nov 2014, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi Marc,
On Samstag, 1. November 2014, Marc Glisse wrote:
sorry for the naive question, but is there a plan for massively rebuilding
all Multi-Arch: same packages that have inconsistent version numbers
across architectures before releasing Jessie?
Hi!
On Sat, 2014-11-01 at 11:45:56 +0100, Marc Glisse wrote:
sorry for the naive question, but is there a plan for massively rebuilding
all Multi-Arch: same packages that have inconsistent version numbers
across architectures before releasing Jessie?
That's something for the release-team and
+++ Marc Glisse [2014-11-01 11:45 +0100]:
Hello,
sorry for the naive question, but is there a plan for massively
rebuilding all Multi-Arch: same packages that have inconsistent
version numbers across architectures before releasing Jessie?
I don't know, but I think there should be. Thank you
On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 13:17:11 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
[ Fixed CC and M-F-T addresses, and bounced to debian-release. ]
Hi!
On Sat, 2014-11-01 at 11:45:56 +0100, Marc Glisse wrote:
sorry for the naive question, but is there a plan for massively rebuilding
all Multi-Arch: same
33 matches
Mail list logo
