On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 01:14:01AM +0200, Helge Deller wrote: > Adeodato Sim?? wrote: >> * Lucas Nussbaum [Sat, 16 Aug 2008 14:10:16 -0300]: >>> ruby1.9 is broken on hppa: 1.9.0.1, that previously built fine (it's in >>> the archive) exhibits the same problems as 1.9.0.2 and 1.9.0.3. >>> I spent hours trying to do the hppa porters' work by investigating the >>> ruby1.9 build failure, with no success (and no help from the hppa >>> porters, except giving me access to an hppa machine, since hppa doesn't >>> have any developer-accessible machine maintained by DSA). >>> In [1], the state of hppa was already raised, and, while no real >>> conclusion has been drawn from this thread, it seems that, while most >>> people involved on hppa find it very sad (which I agree with), the right >>> thing to do is to drop hppa from the list of official archs for lenny, >>> since it's unlikely to be a "good" stable arch. >>> So far, I haven't heard any official position from the release team >>> about that, >> hppa has certainly had trouble during this release cycle. However, it's >> been mostly reduced to a small set of packages, and since (a) it has not >> been the kind of brekage that prevents the release team from doing their >> job (alpha buildd outages eg. have been more painful), and (b) the >> architecture is not generally broken, it was decided not to use /our/ >> veto power to kick it out of lenny. (No decision taken for lenny+1 in >> either direction, though.) >> I realize the ruby1.9 situation is frustrating, but I don't think it's >> fair to drop hppa from lenny because of it. I don't think your "it's >> unlikely to be a 'good' stable arch" is true either. >> Otoh, it's really commendable, and I mean it, that you decided to spend >> your time towards having it fixed, rather than just kill ruby1.9 on hppa >> as I suggested (which is, tbh, what I would've done in your position). >> It really sucks that no hppa person is available to help, but my opinion >> is that's still more valuable to release with hppa without ruby1.9 there, >> than to drop hppa completely. >> So, what I would like from a release POV is to wait at most for this >> glibc -14 upload with context-fu on hppa that somebody somewhere said >> could fix the issue, > > I just looked into ruby19 on hppa. > The makecontext()/setcontext()/switchcontext() functions which went into > libc-ports recently [*2] will not help here. > Instead, I think only when at some point the glibc on hppa switches to > NPTL, ruby could work.
hey Helge! fyi, John Wright and I have had a buildd running w/ an NPTL glibc for a while, and we're not having any better luck with ruby1.9 builds - they seem to fail just as before ('miniruby' spinning indefinitely). In general, I haven't noticed any better or worse behavior between linuxthread/NPTL buildds. > [*2] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.glibc.cvs/25637 > > > > and if it persists, to kill ruby1.9 on hppa so that >> we get that part of the archive on a releseable state. > > Probably the best idea, unless my hand-built (and partly buggy) ruby19 > binaries on http://gsyprf10.external.hp.com/~deller/ruby/ may help (see my > other mail on the debian-hppa list). > >>> [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-hppa/2008/07/msg00044.html >> Cheers, > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- dann frazier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]