Hurd development (was: Release process rolling new releases)
Hello :) Quoting Thomas Schwinge (2014-11-22 18:00:06) Justus, believe me, I do understand your frustration. Thank you very much for being insistent, instead of just going away. It has been two months, time to escalate the issue again :) The glibc change is trivial. And even if the change is not applied to the glibc, it only breaks the system shutdown. Furthermore, I believe that we, the Hurd developers, should be entitled to make such a change without the explicit consent of the glibc developers. If this is not the case, then I do not believe that developing the Hurd is very practical, or even possible, given that half of the Hurd system is implemented in the glibc. Yes. I have already started discussing some procedural changes, and will follow up once I'm back home (currently travelling), in early December. I have reimplemented the startup server. The new server does not support the startup protocol over its message port. This change has not made it into the glibc. The shutdown isn't working. Our development process is severely broken. Or noone gives a shit anymore. Or both. I really cannot tell. Justus
Re: Hurd development (was: Release process rolling new releases)
Justus Winter, le Fri 16 Jan 2015 11:42:23 +0100, a écrit : Our development process is severely broken. Or noone gives a shit anymore. Or both. I really cannot tell. Possibly part of the former. Definitely not the latter. Personally, I've been unfortunately stuck with various unexpected issues in the past week. Samuel
Re: Hurd development (was: Release process rolling new releases)
Quoting Samuel Thibault (2015-01-16 11:56:14) Justus Winter, le Fri 16 Jan 2015 11:42:23 +0100, a écrit : I have reimplemented the startup server. The new server does not support the startup protocol over its message port. This change has not made it into the glibc. The shutdown isn't working. AIUI it is working in the Debian libc thanks to the submitted-startup-pid2.diff patch there, and it is working in the tschwinge/Roger_Whittaker branch of our glibc tree, and thus all is missing now is submitting the patch to upstream, or am I missing something? No it is not. I have a new server that implements the startup protocol, and it neither has a fixed PID nor does it speak the startup protocol over its message port. Justus
Re: Hurd development (was: Release process rolling new releases)
Quoting Samuel Thibault (2015-01-16 12:08:07) Justus Winter, le Fri 16 Jan 2015 12:01:26 +0100, a écrit : No it is not. You mean in Debian? Yes. I have a new server that implements the startup protocol, and it neither has a fixed PID nor does it speak the startup protocol over its message port. You mean your recent rewrite of startup in scheme, for which the brownpaper patch in the Debian tree is not enough, but the proper patch in our glibc tree is? Correct. The proper thing to do is to look up `/servers/startup', which Davids patch does. I'm sorry it must be looking like obvious questions for anybody who have been really following the matters lately, but I have not for personal reasons (which are fortunately mostly over), and I hate not having done so, but that's unfortunately what has happened. Well, I haven't really talked too much about that. The short version is, that I split up `startup' into two components. One of those components, `startup-standalone' (for the lack of a better name), supervises the core servers and handles the system shutdown. I bind it to `/servers/startup' for my new bootstrap procedure. Also, don't you have commit access to the debian packaging? I guess that's one of the things we must fix. No I don't have access. Justus
