On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Felipe Sateler <fsate...@debian.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote: >> Quoting Felipe Sateler (2014-07-11 15:55:34) >>> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:06 AM, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote: >>>> Quoting Felipe Sateler (2014-07-10 17:12:34) >>>>> Ardour3 takes a long time to build. The mips and mipsel buildds >>>>> killed the build after 150 and 300 minutes of inactivity. I managed >>>>> to build ardour3 in the mipsel porterbox, so I don't think ardour >>>>> has any real problem on mipsel. I was wondering if maybe we should >>>>> restrict ardour to the architectures it is likely to be used. >>>>> Otherwise we might need to ask that ardour be retried until it >>>>> manages to print output fast enough to avoid getting killed. >>>>> >>>>> What do you think? >>>> >>>> I think we should not decide based on where it is likely to be used, >>>> but here is is possible to use. >>> >>> In an ideal world, I would agree. But manpower is very short in the >>> team, so prioritizing is of the essence. Spending time on ensuring >>> builds on an architecture (close to) nobody uses is not a very good >>> use of it. >>> >>> But, if you have a suggestion to ensure the build doesn't time out, >>> I'm all ears :) >> >> Maybe I failed to understand, but seems to me that asking th ardour >> build to be retired until not myeriously hanging on porter boxes is not >> burdening man power (of the Multimedia team) but instead putting the >> burden on the porting team where it belongs. > > The burden is on us due to having to track down a missing build. But > most importantly it is a burden on our users because until the mipsel > build is up again, ardour3 cannot migrate to testing. > >> >> I find it wrong of us to try second-guess interests of Debian users. >> >> Particularly, looking at popularity contest is wrong here, IMO, as that >> a) is generally inaccurate (contributions to it is voluntary and only >> reflects internet-connected hosts) and b) tells only about past usage >> patterns, not interests-if-available for next release of Debian and the >> hardware that will then be supported. > > In general, I agree. I would love to be able to provide all packages > in all archs. But it may not be feasible due to time constraints. > >> ...but to address your concrete question: I do not have ideas how to >> reliably avoid builds hanging, but if not already tried I do have a >> suggestion for that: Ask the porters, as it seems you have narrowed the >> issue to be architecture-dependent (if not, then so much more reason >> against treating it as such!). > > The problem, as far as I can see, is that the build takes too long. I > built ardour3 in eder (a mipsel porterbox) successfully, and it took > over 12 hours! > > If you look at the log I linked to, the build daemon killed the build > after some time without activity.
I just realized I didn't post the link before. Sorry! Here it is: https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=ardour3&ver=3.5.380~dfsg-2&suite=sid -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers