Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 16
ons 2011-10-26 klockan 13:34 -0400 skrev omall...@msu.edu: > My concerns still are we need to make sure the current patches are > getting upstream to f16+ and rawhide. And we are actively working on that together with mainline package maintainers. The goal is even to get them into F15+ with as little modifications as possible (hopefully none) in the ARM repository compared to mainline F15, and as always for mainline to have as few patches as possible relative to upstream. But would be good with an activity day with some proven packager(s) to speed up some of this. > I hate to see time wasted trying to track down already fixed bugs. > There are other people working on ARM support ie Ubuntu, and upgraded > versions of the software may actually fix some issues. (yes there > still will be issues.) Yes, and there is at least on GCC a bit of duplicate work going on there cross the distributions from needed bugfixes only being available in GCC trunk and not the stable gcc release, and this for a very long time. > Given the decision has been made to forgo the F16 release. > > Can we get away with taking a snapshot of the F15 base and F15 Updates > trees, and merge them and call that F15 base? I proposed quite some time back that a such snapshot shold be the startingpoint for F15 ARM, but it's decided the goal is to start as close to GA as possible and then try to wiggle forward with updates until things is in a shape that we can spin a release. > All the work that was done for F14 is really all in F16. It may not > appear in F15 base, but may appear in F15 updates. Depending on > when/if the patches were applied. Yes, that's the normal rule, with ARM fixes from F14 being available in F15 updates, or at least F15 git + koji build (but now garbage collected unfortunately). There is a few cases where the change have only been applied to rawhide (now F16), but those are more of an exception. I have so far not seen any case where some needed ARM change have only been applied to F14 or F15 and not later releases. Regards Henrik ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 16
On 10/26/2011 10:34 AM, omall...@msu.edu wrote: > Can we get away with taking a snapshot of the F15 base and F15 Updates > trees, and merge them and call that F15 base? Keeping F15 updates spinning during the F17 work is a sensible thing to do as we could really use a stable ARM Fedora release to work from. This would hopefully look like F15 plus some updates (i.e., what koji produces from an F15 mass rebuild) as GA, then a seperate updates repository. Hopefully any changes that go into F17 during development will end up as updates in F15 since F15 will still be supported until F17 is released. -- Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / b...@redhat.com ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 16
Right. My concerns still are we need to make sure the current patches are getting upstream to f16+ and rawhide. I hate to see time wasted trying to track down already fixed bugs. There are other people working on ARM support ie Ubuntu, and upgraded versions of the software may actually fix some issues. (yes there still will be issues.) Given the decision has been made to forgo the F16 release. Can we get away with taking a snapshot of the F15 base and F15 Updates trees, and merge them and call that F15 base? All the work that was done for F14 is really all in F16. It may not appear in F15 base, but may appear in F15 updates. Depending on when/if the patches were applied. Or is this not the case? Quoting Jonathan Masters : > Plan was to release a good enough F15 but absolutely to do some kind > of release (just cap when we will move on to keep momentum - a > couple more weeks and we need to be focused on rawhide). It's F16 we > are wanting to skip in order to focus on rawhide by the new year. > > -- > Sent from my phone - message formatted and/or shortened accordingly. > > > -Original Message- > From: Peter Robinson [pbrobin...@gmail.com] > Received: Tuesday, 25 Oct 2011, 11:17 > To: Chris Tyler [ch...@tylers.info] > CC: Fedora ARM secondary architecture list [arm@lists.fedoraproject.org] > Subject: Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 16 > > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Chris Tyler wrote: >> On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 17:49 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: >>> So what's the status of this? Are we using the F-15 as the external >>> repo base for building F-17? When is it going to happen? My >>> understanding is we have enough of both arches built that we can start >>> this rolling. It would be good to see some public movement on this now >>> and to get this rolling rather than delaying further. >> >> No one's delaying, but there is a sequence to this that we shouldn't >> short-circuit: >> >> * Sync up the armv5tel and armv7hl pre-koji package sets <= We are here >> * Do final F15 build in Koji > > It was my understanding from dgilmore's proposal above that we were > going to skip F-15 and just go straight to F-17. Ultimately whether we > do a final F-15 or F-17 it doesn't really matter, the current build > tool chain for them both is derived from gcc 4.6.1 > >> * Release F15 (& start F15-updates builds) >> * Finalize koji changes for rawhide (rpm, rpmbuild, yum, koji, armv7hl >> rootfs) >> * Do necessary prebuilds for rawhide (build-previous or other) >> * Build for rawhide, shadow PA as closely as possible >> * Branch F17 when PA does >> >> At the end of this process we'll be building for at least three releases >> (F15updates, F17, rawhide) across two archs - 6 builds total. > > Why? I thought the above process was with the idea of just using the > F-15 work that was done as a base to go straight to F-17 and forget > the rest. Clearly people need to start documenting the exact process > for all to see. > > Peter > ___ > arm mailing list > arm@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm > -- "The information in this email, and attachment(s) thereto, is strictly confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the named recipient(s), and access to this e-mail, or any attachment(s) thereto, by anyone else is unauthorized. Violations hereof may result in legal actions. Any attachment(s) to this e-mail have been checked for viruses, but please rely on your own virus-checker and procedures. If you contact us by e-mail, we will store your name and address to facilitate communications in the matter concerned. If you do not consent to us storing your name and address for above stated purpose, please notify the sender promptly. Also, if you are not the intended recipient please inform the sender by replying to this transmission, and delete the e-mail, its attachment(s), and any copies of it without, disclosing it." ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 16
Plan was to release a good enough F15 but absolutely to do some kind of release (just cap when we will move on to keep momentum - a couple more weeks and we need to be focused on rawhide). It's F16 we are wanting to skip in order to focus on rawhide by the new year. -- Sent from my phone - message formatted and/or shortened accordingly. -Original Message- From: Peter Robinson [pbrobin...@gmail.com] Received: Tuesday, 25 Oct 2011, 11:17 To: Chris Tyler [ch...@tylers.info] CC: Fedora ARM secondary architecture list [arm@lists.fedoraproject.org] Subject: Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 16 On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Chris Tyler wrote: > On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 17:49 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: >> So what's the status of this? Are we using the F-15 as the external >> repo base for building F-17? When is it going to happen? My >> understanding is we have enough of both arches built that we can start >> this rolling. It would be good to see some public movement on this now >> and to get this rolling rather than delaying further. > > No one's delaying, but there is a sequence to this that we shouldn't > short-circuit: > > * Sync up the armv5tel and armv7hl pre-koji package sets <= We are here > * Do final F15 build in Koji It was my understanding from dgilmore's proposal above that we were going to skip F-15 and just go straight to F-17. Ultimately whether we do a final F-15 or F-17 it doesn't really matter, the current build tool chain for them both is derived from gcc 4.6.1 > * Release F15 (& start F15-updates builds) > * Finalize koji changes for rawhide (rpm, rpmbuild, yum, koji, armv7hl > rootfs) > * Do necessary prebuilds for rawhide (build-previous or other) > * Build for rawhide, shadow PA as closely as possible > * Branch F17 when PA does > > At the end of this process we'll be building for at least three releases > (F15updates, F17, rawhide) across two archs - 6 builds total. Why? I thought the above process was with the idea of just using the F-15 work that was done as a base to go straight to F-17 and forget the rest. Clearly people need to start documenting the exact process for all to see. Peter ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 16
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Chris Tyler wrote: > On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 19:17 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Chris Tyler wrote: >> > On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 17:49 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: >> >> So what's the status of this? Are we using the F-15 as the external >> >> repo base for building F-17? When is it going to happen? My >> >> understanding is we have enough of both arches built that we can start >> >> this rolling. It would be good to see some public movement on this now >> >> and to get this rolling rather than delaying further. >> > >> > No one's delaying, but there is a sequence to this that we shouldn't >> > short-circuit: >> > >> > * Sync up the armv5tel and armv7hl pre-koji package sets <= We are here >> > * Do final F15 build in Koji >> >> It was my understanding from dgilmore's proposal above that we were >> going to skip F-15 and just go straight to F-17. Ultimately whether we >> do a final F-15 or F-17 it doesn't really matter, the current build >> tool chain for them both is derived from gcc 4.6.1 > > The proposal was to skip F16. > > We're close to F15 and we need it. If we don't ship it, we have a > substantial time gap where we have no supported Fedora release. Shipping > F15 also gives us experience with systemd on ARM (and other pieces of a > fairly complete release, such as haskell and ocaml) which can feed into > the F17 development cycle. > >> > * Release F15 (& start F15-updates builds) >> > * Finalize koji changes for rawhide (rpm, rpmbuild, yum, koji, armv7hl >> > rootfs) >> > * Do necessary prebuilds for rawhide (build-previous or other) >> > * Build for rawhide, shadow PA as closely as possible >> > * Branch F17 when PA does >> > >> > At the end of this process we'll be building for at least three releases >> > (F15updates, F17, rawhide) across two archs - 6 builds total. >> >> Why? I thought the above process was with the idea of just using the >> F-15 work that was done as a base to go straight to F-17 and forget >> the rest. Clearly people need to start documenting the exact process >> for all to see. > > The goal is to get as close to PA as possible, as quickly as possible. > If we follow only the F17 branch, we're in a catch-up position *again* > for F18. If we follow both rawhide and F17, we're in much better shape > for F18. And if we ship F15 for ARM, we need to ship updates (and prove > that we can ship timely updates, which will be important when making the > case for primary arch status). That's what I mean. F-17 doesn't fork from rawhide until alpha, so at the moment F-17 == rawhide for a couple of months yet and hence there is no F17 branch to discuss. I'm sort of hoping we have a lot of that build by branch time and its hence not a problem. Peter ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 16
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 19:17 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Chris Tyler wrote: > > On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 17:49 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > >> So what's the status of this? Are we using the F-15 as the external > >> repo base for building F-17? When is it going to happen? My > >> understanding is we have enough of both arches built that we can start > >> this rolling. It would be good to see some public movement on this now > >> and to get this rolling rather than delaying further. > > > > No one's delaying, but there is a sequence to this that we shouldn't > > short-circuit: > > > > * Sync up the armv5tel and armv7hl pre-koji package sets <= We are here > > * Do final F15 build in Koji > > It was my understanding from dgilmore's proposal above that we were > going to skip F-15 and just go straight to F-17. Ultimately whether we > do a final F-15 or F-17 it doesn't really matter, the current build > tool chain for them both is derived from gcc 4.6.1 The proposal was to skip F16. We're close to F15 and we need it. If we don't ship it, we have a substantial time gap where we have no supported Fedora release. Shipping F15 also gives us experience with systemd on ARM (and other pieces of a fairly complete release, such as haskell and ocaml) which can feed into the F17 development cycle. > > * Release F15 (& start F15-updates builds) > > * Finalize koji changes for rawhide (rpm, rpmbuild, yum, koji, armv7hl > > rootfs) > > * Do necessary prebuilds for rawhide (build-previous or other) > > * Build for rawhide, shadow PA as closely as possible > > * Branch F17 when PA does > > > > At the end of this process we'll be building for at least three releases > > (F15updates, F17, rawhide) across two archs - 6 builds total. > > Why? I thought the above process was with the idea of just using the > F-15 work that was done as a base to go straight to F-17 and forget > the rest. Clearly people need to start documenting the exact process > for all to see. The goal is to get as close to PA as possible, as quickly as possible. If we follow only the F17 branch, we're in a catch-up position *again* for F18. If we follow both rawhide and F17, we're in much better shape for F18. And if we ship F15 for ARM, we need to ship updates (and prove that we can ship timely updates, which will be important when making the case for primary arch status). -Chris ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 16
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Chris Tyler wrote: >> On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 17:49 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: >>> So what's the status of this? Are we using the F-15 as the external >>> repo base for building F-17? When is it going to happen? My >>> understanding is we have enough of both arches built that we can start >>> this rolling. It would be good to see some public movement on this now >>> and to get this rolling rather than delaying further. >> >> No one's delaying, but there is a sequence to this that we shouldn't >> short-circuit: Oh and I'm not saying short circuit it, I'm saying educate people so there's not random dumps and then deathly silence. According the previously announced schedule we should be building from koji by now. Peter ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 16
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Chris Tyler wrote: > On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 17:49 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: >> So what's the status of this? Are we using the F-15 as the external >> repo base for building F-17? When is it going to happen? My >> understanding is we have enough of both arches built that we can start >> this rolling. It would be good to see some public movement on this now >> and to get this rolling rather than delaying further. > > No one's delaying, but there is a sequence to this that we shouldn't > short-circuit: > > * Sync up the armv5tel and armv7hl pre-koji package sets <= We are here > * Do final F15 build in Koji It was my understanding from dgilmore's proposal above that we were going to skip F-15 and just go straight to F-17. Ultimately whether we do a final F-15 or F-17 it doesn't really matter, the current build tool chain for them both is derived from gcc 4.6.1 > * Release F15 (& start F15-updates builds) > * Finalize koji changes for rawhide (rpm, rpmbuild, yum, koji, armv7hl > rootfs) > * Do necessary prebuilds for rawhide (build-previous or other) > * Build for rawhide, shadow PA as closely as possible > * Branch F17 when PA does > > At the end of this process we'll be building for at least three releases > (F15updates, F17, rawhide) across two archs - 6 builds total. Why? I thought the above process was with the idea of just using the F-15 work that was done as a base to go straight to F-17 and forget the rest. Clearly people need to start documenting the exact process for all to see. Peter ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 16
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 17:49 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > So what's the status of this? Are we using the F-15 as the external > repo base for building F-17? When is it going to happen? My > understanding is we have enough of both arches built that we can start > this rolling. It would be good to see some public movement on this now > and to get this rolling rather than delaying further. No one's delaying, but there is a sequence to this that we shouldn't short-circuit: * Sync up the armv5tel and armv7hl pre-koji package sets <= We are here * Do final F15 build in Koji * Release F15 (& start F15-updates builds) * Finalize koji changes for rawhide (rpm, rpmbuild, yum, koji, armv7hl rootfs) * Do necessary prebuilds for rawhide (build-previous or other) * Build for rawhide, shadow PA as closely as possible * Branch F17 when PA does At the end of this process we'll be building for at least three releases (F15updates, F17, rawhide) across two archs - 6 builds total. -- Chris ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 16
Ho Jon, On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Jon Masters wrote: > On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 22:09 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > >> So ive done some thinking, and talked with some of the stakeholders. >> Ive come to the conclusion that we should skip f16 and shoot straight >> for rawhide. two reasons for this. one to become a primary arch at some >> point we need to be caught up and doing releases at the same time. my >> long term goal is for arm to become a primary arch and the second >> reason why i think that we should skip f16 is that its easier to get >> help from maintainers when doing things in rawhide. I wanted to get a >> quick note out there to get discussion going. > > Thanks for sending this Dennis. We spoke about this briefly at the tail > end of last week since you were out this way, and as I said then, I > think this is both a good idea and essential to us making progress > toward being a primary architecture by this time next year. If we can > get ourselves building rawhide by the new year, we get F17 for free. > That then gives us a compelling case for F18 as primary arch. If we miss > this time around, we're back in the cycle we've been in which isn't > really going to let us achieve satisfactory world domination ;) So what's the status of this? Are we using the F-15 as the external repo base for building F-17? When is it going to happen? My understanding is we have enough of both arches built that we can start this rolling. It would be good to see some public movement on this now and to get this rolling rather than delaying further. Peter ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 16
On 10/20/2011 08:14 PM, Henrik Nordström wrote: > ttor 2011-10-20 klockan 17:30 +0100 skrev Peter Robinson: > >>> How many of these have been submitted upstream? >> >> I suspect very few, there's only about 100 odd there so it shouldn't >> take long to get them upstreamed. > > java-1.5.0-gcj > java-1.6.0-openjdk New OpenJDK packages are coming down the pipe, but the upstream release might take some time. People will have to continue to use the unofficial packages at http://aph.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/armv7hl/ for a little while longer. Andrew. ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 16
ttor 2011-10-20 klockan 17:30 +0100 skrev Peter Robinson:
> > How many of these have been submitted upstream?
>
> I suspect very few, there's only about 100 odd there so it shouldn't
> take long to get them upstreamed.
It's not really that many. A very large group of those are the ghc
related ones and is tracked as one and in close relation with mainline
package maintainer.
Not counting the ghc related stuff it's:
anaconda (bug report open)
gcc (mostly merged, except for two patches which is backported from gcc-4.7)
glibc
gypsy
hdf5
hwloc
java-1.5.0-gcj
java-1.6.0-openjdk
js
mpich2 (but maybe not as this.. valgrind supports armv7)
mutter
mysql (partially merged mainline)
netcdf (but maybe not as this.. valgrind supports armv7)
ocaml
pl (but I don't understand why this change is needed)
python-pyblock
pyxf86config
xulrunner, firefox & other Mozilla packages
rpm & yum
> One question I have looking at a number of the spec patches... why is
> in most cases is "armv7hl" uses as the arch instead of %{arm} ?
Those are the ghc related ones. It's because as of yet there is no ghc
on armv5tel. There will be very shortly however. It's not yet decided
if it's worth the effort to update them all in F15 adding the right arch
tag (%{ghc_arches}), or just wait until F16+ where this is already set.
In either case those are not needed for moving to koji. Updating ghc
related packages can be done after koji as well.
The important piece to get merged is the toolchain (ghc + hscolour) and
this is pretty much there already. I have mock built rpms ready for
upload but need to verify that redhat-rpm-config and ghc-rpm-macros is
up to date first and also waiting for the needed changes in ghc to hit
F15 koji (in rawhide now).
Regards
Henrik
___
arm mailing list
arm@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 16
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:49 PM, wrote:
> Quoting DJ Delorie :
>
>>
>>> I thought we should have skipped F15,
>>
>> Back when I started, F16 was just a glimmer, and deemed too much of a
>> moving target. V5tel was still working on F13 and so targetting F15
>> was, at that point, already skipping a release
>
> It is all good. F17 is just a glimmer right now too. However since the
> base most likely isn't making any major jumps with the F15 it forms a
> nice foundation for a jump to 17.
Yes, especially know where the gcc and associated build chain are very
similar in F-16 and F-15 (ie gcc 4.6.x based) but that may change in
the 17 cycle so the sooner we start building the quicker we can get in
lock step with mainline. F-16 dev is winding down, very soon F-17 will
be ramping up.
Is there a way to check all the arm source repositories for changes
>>> that have been made to verify they made it into the mainline
>>> f15/f16/rawhide packages?
>>
>> http://djdelorie.fedorapeople.org/armv7-srpms.html
>>
>> The two purple categories are packages that need patches (either just
>> the spec file, or actual code changes too) pushed upstream.
>>
> How many of these have been submitted upstream?
I suspect very few, there's only about 100 odd there so it shouldn't
take long to get them upstreamed.
One question I have looking at a number of the spec patches... why is
in most cases is "armv7hl" uses as the arch instead of %{arm} ?
Peter
___
arm mailing list
arm@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 16
Quoting DJ Delorie : > >> I thought we should have skipped F15, > > Back when I started, F16 was just a glimmer, and deemed too much of a > moving target. V5tel was still working on F13 and so targetting F15 > was, at that point, already skipping a release It is all good. F17 is just a glimmer right now too. However since the base most likely isn't making any major jumps with the F15 it forms a nice foundation for a jump to 17. >>> Is there a way to check all the arm source repositories for changes >> that have been made to verify they made it into the mainline >> f15/f16/rawhide packages? > > http://djdelorie.fedorapeople.org/armv7-srpms.html > > The two purple categories are packages that need patches (either just > the spec file, or actual code changes too) pushed upstream. > How many of these have been submitted upstream? ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 16
> I thought we should have skipped F15, Back when I started, F16 was just a glimmer, and deemed too much of a moving target. V5tel was still working on F13 and so targetting F15 was, at that point, already skipping a release. > Is there a way to check all the arm source repositories for changes > that have been made to verify they made it into the mainline > f15/f16/rawhide packages? http://djdelorie.fedorapeople.org/armv7-srpms.html The two purple categories are packages that need patches (either just the spec file, or actual code changes too) pushed upstream. ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 16
I thought we should have skipped F15, but I do agree we are probably going to have to skip one release. Even if say armv5 does 16 and armv7 does 17 then a unified 18. Is there a way to check all the arm source repositories for changes that have been made to verify they made it into the mainline f15/f16/rawhide packages? If say some of the F15 changes didn't make it to F16 or rawhide, this may save quite a bit of time moving forward. If possible, it would be nice to just have this run as once a month type of verification tool. It doesn't sound extremely useful if everything is going correctly, but it does verify the whole process. Someone had a one off tool for the F15 srpm's, maybe start there and flesh it out, or is there a "better way"? Quoting Peter Robinson : > 2011/10/19 Henrik Nordström : >> tis 2011-10-18 klockan 22:09 -0500 skrev Dennis Gilmore: >> >>> So ive done some thinking, and talked with some of the stakeholders. >>> Ive come to the conclusion that we should skip f16 and shoot straight >>> for rawhide. >> >> +1 from me. It's already late to start on F16. F17 is a more realistic >> goal. >> >> Related to this FTBFS issues needs to be tracked more closely. There >> have been quite many mainline FTBFS issues seen in the F15 rebuild which >> is not even fixed in rawhide. And when moving to rawhide a number of new >> FTBFS issues will arise. > > Well the patches used for f-15 packages should have ultimately been > commited to mainline F-15/16/rawhide as they were found so we wouldn't > have this problem. I was doing that with all the fixes I made to F-14 > so at least those will be mainline. > >> Just not sure if that jump from F15 to rawhide should be done by trying >> moving forward in koji, or as a two stage rebuild like done for >> armv5tel. Depends largely on how good the shadowing scripts are at >> ordering build dependencies or how complex it is in koji to reshake >> packages that need to be rebuilt because of build ordering issues >> resulting in broken builds. > > koji-shadow is pretty good, but it can be slow (this might be > incentive enough to improve it!) and we will likely end up with a > chunk of f-15/16 built as part of it, but we'd end up with that > anyway. F-15 was the last mass rebuild so technically there should be > no need for anything before that. I think we start asap using the f-15 > builds and actually get things moving forwards and fix as we go rather > than messing about all over again with staging it. I have a rough > build order I did in koji to get f-14 bootstrapped with F-13 and will > gladly help out to push them through so we can get a decent build > chain to kick of koji-shadow. > >> Even with the limited package churn we have had in armv7hl there have >> been quite many packages with bad builds due to dependencies changing, >> and quite likely is some left still. But as the mock building is all >> "scratch" builds it's then only a matter or rescheduling the same builds >> again. How is this handled when building in koji? > > koji-shadow will go down the dep chain and build deps, and dep's deps. > >>> I suspect there are some pieces of f16 we will need to build to get >>> things right. and if we get caught up quickly and can follow the >>> branching from rawhide to f17 there is no reason we cant back track >>> around and do f16 i just feel that once we get f15 done we should get >>> moving towards parity. and showing that arm works and can keep up and >>> follow along. > > well if you look at f-17 its still composed of a lot of f16 and even > f15 (f15 being the last mass rebuild) but the build chain is still not > to far removed from F-15 in that gcc is still 4.6, python is still 2.7 > etc. Basically I think we need to start with the F-15 we have and kick > it off and run and fix. If we wait until its all perfect we'll never > start. > > Peter > >> A double rebuild is a very powerful tool for shaking out any build >> issues. You will be left pretty much with a set of good packages and a >> set of FTBFS packages. And package maintainers have rason to look into >> FTBFS issues. >> >> Regards >> Henrik >> >> ___ >> arm mailing list >> arm@lists.fedoraproject.org >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm >> > ___ > arm mailing list > arm@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm > -- "The information in this email, and attachment(s) thereto, is strictly confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the named recipient(s), and access to this e-mail, or any attachment(s) thereto, by anyone else is unauthorized. Violations hereof may result in legal actions. Any attachment(s) to this e-mail have been checked for viruses, but please rely on your own virus-checker and procedures. If you contact us by e-mail, we will store your name and address to facilitate communicat
Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 16
2011/10/19 Henrik Nordström : > tis 2011-10-18 klockan 22:09 -0500 skrev Dennis Gilmore: > >> So ive done some thinking, and talked with some of the stakeholders. >> Ive come to the conclusion that we should skip f16 and shoot straight >> for rawhide. > > +1 from me. It's already late to start on F16. F17 is a more realistic > goal. > > Related to this FTBFS issues needs to be tracked more closely. There > have been quite many mainline FTBFS issues seen in the F15 rebuild which > is not even fixed in rawhide. And when moving to rawhide a number of new > FTBFS issues will arise. Well the patches used for f-15 packages should have ultimately been commited to mainline F-15/16/rawhide as they were found so we wouldn't have this problem. I was doing that with all the fixes I made to F-14 so at least those will be mainline. > Just not sure if that jump from F15 to rawhide should be done by trying > moving forward in koji, or as a two stage rebuild like done for > armv5tel. Depends largely on how good the shadowing scripts are at > ordering build dependencies or how complex it is in koji to reshake > packages that need to be rebuilt because of build ordering issues > resulting in broken builds. koji-shadow is pretty good, but it can be slow (this might be incentive enough to improve it!) and we will likely end up with a chunk of f-15/16 built as part of it, but we'd end up with that anyway. F-15 was the last mass rebuild so technically there should be no need for anything before that. I think we start asap using the f-15 builds and actually get things moving forwards and fix as we go rather than messing about all over again with staging it. I have a rough build order I did in koji to get f-14 bootstrapped with F-13 and will gladly help out to push them through so we can get a decent build chain to kick of koji-shadow. > Even with the limited package churn we have had in armv7hl there have > been quite many packages with bad builds due to dependencies changing, > and quite likely is some left still. But as the mock building is all > "scratch" builds it's then only a matter or rescheduling the same builds > again. How is this handled when building in koji? koji-shadow will go down the dep chain and build deps, and dep's deps. >> I suspect there are some pieces of f16 we will need to build to get >> things right. and if we get caught up quickly and can follow the >> branching from rawhide to f17 there is no reason we cant back track >> around and do f16 i just feel that once we get f15 done we should get >> moving towards parity. and showing that arm works and can keep up and >> follow along. well if you look at f-17 its still composed of a lot of f16 and even f15 (f15 being the last mass rebuild) but the build chain is still not to far removed from F-15 in that gcc is still 4.6, python is still 2.7 etc. Basically I think we need to start with the F-15 we have and kick it off and run and fix. If we wait until its all perfect we'll never start. Peter > A double rebuild is a very powerful tool for shaking out any build > issues. You will be left pretty much with a set of good packages and a > set of FTBFS packages. And package maintainers have rason to look into > FTBFS issues. > > Regards > Henrik > > ___ > arm mailing list > arm@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm > ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 16
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:09 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > So ive done some thinking, and talked with some of the stakeholders. > Ive come to the conclusion that we should skip f16 and shoot straight > for rawhide. two reasons for this. one to become a primary arch at some > point we need to be caught up and doing releases at the same time. my > long term goal is for arm to become a primary arch and the second > reason why i think that we should skip f16 is that its easier to get > help from maintainers when doing things in rawhide. I wanted to get a > quick note out there to get discussion going. Sounds great to me. OLPC is also looking at skipping F15 for XO builds; the only reason I'm involved in the ARM F15 work is because it is a necessary step in the path to getting newer Fedora versions running. Skipping F16 to get caught up sounds great. Daniel ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 16
tis 2011-10-18 klockan 22:09 -0500 skrev Dennis Gilmore: > So ive done some thinking, and talked with some of the stakeholders. > Ive come to the conclusion that we should skip f16 and shoot straight > for rawhide. +1 from me. It's already late to start on F16. F17 is a more realistic goal. Related to this FTBFS issues needs to be tracked more closely. There have been quite many mainline FTBFS issues seen in the F15 rebuild which is not even fixed in rawhide. And when moving to rawhide a number of new FTBFS issues will arise. Just not sure if that jump from F15 to rawhide should be done by trying moving forward in koji, or as a two stage rebuild like done for armv5tel. Depends largely on how good the shadowing scripts are at ordering build dependencies or how complex it is in koji to reshake packages that need to be rebuilt because of build ordering issues resulting in broken builds. Even with the limited package churn we have had in armv7hl there have been quite many packages with bad builds due to dependencies changing, and quite likely is some left still. But as the mock building is all "scratch" builds it's then only a matter or rescheduling the same builds again. How is this handled when building in koji? > I suspect there are some pieces of f16 we will need to build to get > things right. and if we get caught up quickly and can follow the > branching from rawhide to f17 there is no reason we cant back track > around and do f16 i just feel that once we get f15 done we should get > moving towards parity. and showing that arm works and can keep up and > follow along. A double rebuild is a very powerful tool for shaking out any build issues. You will be left pretty much with a set of good packages and a set of FTBFS packages. And package maintainers have rason to look into FTBFS issues. Regards Henrik ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 16
On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 22:09 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > So ive done some thinking, and talked with some of the stakeholders. > Ive come to the conclusion that we should skip f16 and shoot straight > for rawhide. two reasons for this. one to become a primary arch at some > point we need to be caught up and doing releases at the same time. my > long term goal is for arm to become a primary arch and the second > reason why i think that we should skip f16 is that its easier to get > help from maintainers when doing things in rawhide. I wanted to get a > quick note out there to get discussion going. Thanks for sending this Dennis. We spoke about this briefly at the tail end of last week since you were out this way, and as I said then, I think this is both a good idea and essential to us making progress toward being a primary architecture by this time next year. If we can get ourselves building rawhide by the new year, we get F17 for free. That then gives us a compelling case for F18 as primary arch. If we miss this time around, we're back in the cycle we've been in which isn't really going to let us achieve satisfactory world domination ;) Jon. ___ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
