Re: BTS usertags for Alpha specific bugs
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I scanned the BTS for Alpha specific bugs (by looking for those reported on an Alpha machine, or with alpha in the subject). I'm planning to use usertags with user debian-alpha@lists.debian.org to record this. I would use the following tags: You didn't mention what user you'll be using for these usertags. It was probably the obvious choice, but just in case, may I suggest using [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes, that's just what I thought of :-) I would like to see some tagging mechanism for bugs that are general 64-bit bugs as well, so we could theoretically spread the load on these between porters for all three archs. Seems like a good idea. Maybe somebody[tm] can post a proposal to the appropriate lists... BTW, given that most of the cases of broken packages *should* be turned into FTBFS bugs by the maintainer in the absence of any other action by the porters, I would suggest this is the appropriate category for FTBFS bugs even if we aren't planning to proactively usertag them. Thinking of it, it might be clearest to just have a ftbfs tag. I've set up a Wiki page at http://wiki.debian.org/AlphaBugs and tagged the list I sent. Everybody, feel free to change/add... -- Falk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BTS usertags for Alpha specific bugs
On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 01:08:23PM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote: I would like to see some tagging mechanism for bugs that are general 64-bit bugs as well, so we could theoretically spread the load on these between porters for all three archs. Seems like a good idea. Maybe somebody[tm] can post a proposal to the appropriate lists... Ok. Hey, ia64/amd64 folks -- I propose that we come up with some tagging mechanism for bugs that are common to our 64-bit architectures, so we could theoretically spread their load between porters for all three archs. What do you think? :-) BTW, given that most of the cases of broken packages *should* be turned into FTBFS bugs by the maintainer in the absence of any other action by the porters, I would suggest this is the appropriate category for FTBFS bugs even if we aren't planning to proactively usertag them. Thinking of it, it might be clearest to just have a ftbfs tag. I've set up a Wiki page at http://wiki.debian.org/AlphaBugs and tagged the list I sent. Everybody, feel free to change/add... You have: (add kernel packages here) Since in 2.6 the kernels are all built from the linux-2.6 package, might it not be a good idea to tag these as well? (Not offering to do it myself at the moment, sorry :) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: BTS usertags for Alpha specific bugs
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Since in 2.6 the kernels are all built from the linux-2.6 package, might it not be a good idea to tag these as well? Probably yes, I have a partial list somewhere, so I might do this. -- Falk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sparc build failure analysis (was Re: StrongARM tactics)
On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 05:55:23AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: Indeed, for practical buildd maintainance purposes, the distinction is not that important -- though 'Failed' is known to not benefit of a requeue, while 'Building:Maybe-Failed' might or might not, it's unkown, most archs should have enough surplus buildd power that retrying everything once in a while doesn't hurt. The major benefit is though to make it apparant for porters what to look into, without all the 'noise' in between of maybe-transient failures. One could also make sure that the FTBFS bugs are tagged (user-tagged) with [EMAIL PROTECTED] (etc) for example (or [EMAIL PROTECTED] There doesn't exist a [EMAIL PROTECTED] for example...), so that one can get a nice overview of all the porting bugs. It'd make sense to synchronise this across all architectures, so that it is consistent. http://lists.debian.org/debian-alpha/2005/12/msg00028.html I have a long list of bug affecting amd64, but I haven't started with usertags for it. The (FTBFS) bugs I encouter (as buildd admin) are: - General bugs affecting all arches. - General bugs affecting 64 bit arches. - Bugs affecting some arches (like not using -fPIC) - Bugs only affecting amd64. And the later really is the minorty of the problems. Note that this does not cover runtime problems or something like that, but they're very simular. Do we need to have a special usertag for the first kind? This is basicly something everybody can look at. The only reason I can think of that it requires some tag is that it's better then looking at those that don't have a tag. So, I'm open for suggestions on how to tag the first 3 of those. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
