Re: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22
On 1/22/20 11:25 PM, Witold Baryluk wrote: > Yes, I did use the previous images and it did work. > I just wanted to report on the new images with new kernel ;) The images in the date folders should be considered untested. There are a couple of things that I need to fix before I can create reliable images again, including adding firmware to the images. Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Re: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22
Ok, thanks. Yes, I did use the previous images and it did work. I just wanted to report on the new images with new kernel ;) Cheers, Witold On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 22:12, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > > Hello! > > On 1/22/20 11:08 PM, Witold Baryluk wrote: > > I tried alpha ISO, and it does boot, and I can proceed with most of the > > steps, but debootstrap does fail installing init_1.57_alpha.deb > Just use one of the older images for the time being. Such installation issues > can occur when images were built when the archive was in an inconsistent > state. > > You can dist-upgrade the system later. > > Adrian > > -- > .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz > : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org > `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de > `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Re: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22
Hello! On 1/22/20 11:08 PM, Witold Baryluk wrote: > I tried alpha ISO, and it does boot, and I can proceed with most of the > steps, but debootstrap does fail installing init_1.57_alpha.deb Just use one of the older images for the time being. Such installation issues can occur when images were built when the archive was in an inconsistent state. You can dist-upgrade the system later. Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Re: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22
Hi John, and thanks a lot for the new images. I tried alpha ISO, and it does boot, and I can proceed with most of the steps, but debootstrap does fail installing init_1.57_alpha.deb >From logs it reads: init pre-depends on systemd-sysv | sysvinit-core. But none is installed. There is also a bunch of segfaults somehow early, either in list-devices or some LVM related commands. syslog with info from d-i in attachment On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 at 10:23, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > > Hi! > > I just uploaded updated installation images 2019-07-22 for the > following Debian Ports architectures [1]: > > * alpha > * hppa > * ia64 > * m68k > * powerpc > * ppc64 > * sparc64 > > debian-installer images for netboot and sh4 can be found in [2]. > > I have successfully tested the sparc64 image, but not the other images, > so the issue with the kernel module versions mismatch has been fixed. > > The images for alpha and ia64 could have issues because of the missing > vim package [3]. Someone needs to have a look at vim on these two > architectures. > > > [1] https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/ports/2019-11-22/ > > [2] https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/ports/debian-installer/ > > [3] https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=vim=sid > > Adrian > > -- > .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz > : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org > `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de > `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913 > syslog-alpha.txt.gz Description: application/gzip
Re: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22
Hi! On 12/1/19 1:07 AM, Bob Tracy wrote: > All that being said, I'd *definitely* think twice about blindly changing > the sleep values. Again, you'll never see this issue on the "buildd" > systems. If I were the package maintainer, I'd reject this patch :-). > > (file is in "guile-2.2-2.2.6+1/test-suite/standalone" after extracting > the source package) > > --- test-guild-compile.orig 2019-11-30 17:56:39.276270948 -0600 > +++ test-guild-compile2019-11-30 17:57:18.874959718 -0600 > @@ -23,10 +23,10 @@ > pid="$!" > > # Send SIGINT. > -sleep 2 && kill -INT "$pid" > +sleep 5 && kill -INT "$pid" > > # Wait for 'guild compile' to terminate. > -sleep 2 > +sleep 15 > > # Check whether there are any leftovers. > for file in "$target"* I don't think there is anything wrong per se with increasing the test timeouts, it won't hurt on any architecture and build machine. Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Re: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 05:51:45PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > > On Nov 30, 2019, at 4:54 PM, Skye wrote: > > > > Bob, that is excellent information. Thank you for sharing! > > I suggest turning this into a patch. Fixing guile-2.0 and guile-2.2 on alpha > is dearly needed, so patches are really welcome. > > Adrian I definitely appreciate that fixing the guile-2.0 and guile-2.2 builds on alpha is a priority, and if there was anything useful I could contribute beyond demonstrating it can be done, I'd be happy to provide patches. The problem *I* ran into was entirely due to how s-l-o-w my system is. Since the issue is associated with exactly *one* of the guile-2.2 tests (for the "guild" compiler), I'm reluctant to have a "hack" workaround become part of the test suite source, especially since the problem will never be seen on one of the "buildd" hosts. I didn't see the problem with the exact same test on the "guile-2.0" build because 2.0 runs more efficiently on older, slower systems. If you feel otherwise as far as wanting a patch, the simple diff is appended below. Nothing magical about the "sleep" values I picked. The first one is to allow enough time for the "guild" compiler to actually begin doing something, and *may* be too long to wait for a machine that can actually get out of its own way :-(. The second sleep value can be anything less than the 100 seconds allowed by the test script for the compile to complete, but needs to be long enough to allow the "guild" compiler to receive and process the sent SIGINT. All that being said, I'd *definitely* think twice about blindly changing the sleep values. Again, you'll never see this issue on the "buildd" systems. If I were the package maintainer, I'd reject this patch :-). (file is in "guile-2.2-2.2.6+1/test-suite/standalone" after extracting the source package) --- test-guild-compile.orig 2019-11-30 17:56:39.276270948 -0600 +++ test-guild-compile 2019-11-30 17:57:18.874959718 -0600 @@ -23,10 +23,10 @@ pid="$!" # Send SIGINT. -sleep 2 && kill -INT "$pid" +sleep 5 && kill -INT "$pid" # Wait for 'guild compile' to terminate. -sleep 2 +sleep 15 # Check whether there are any leftovers. for file in "$target"*
RE: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22
If someone could point me to the web location I would be happy to do so. It seems I am a little in the dark on that aspect. =Skye -Original Message- From: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz [mailto:glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de] Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2019 9:52 AM To: Skye Cc: Bob Tracy; debian-alpha@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22 Hi! > On Nov 30, 2019, at 4:54 PM, Skye wrote: > > Bob, that is excellent information. Thank you for sharing! I suggest turning this into a patch. Fixing guile-2.0 and guile-2.2 on alpha is dearly needed, so patches are really welcome. Adrian
Re: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22
Hi! > On Nov 30, 2019, at 4:54 PM, Skye wrote: > > Bob, that is excellent information. Thank you for sharing! I suggest turning this into a patch. Fixing guile-2.0 and guile-2.2 on alpha is dearly needed, so patches are really welcome. Adrian
RE: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22
Bob, that is excellent information. Thank you for sharing! =Skye -Original Message- From: Bob Tracy [mailto:r...@frus.com] Sent: Friday, November 29, 2019 10:31 PM To: Michael Cree; John Paul Adrian Glaubitz; debian-alpha@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22 On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 01:59:36PM +1300, Michael Cree wrote: > (...) It passes more often than not and > only fails occasionally. I see that there is a patch in the > debian/patches directory to avoid a race condition in this test. > But I don't know guile so don't understand the code. There are a few of the "guile" tests that have some timing aspects where sometimes you "win" the race, and other times you "lose". In an earlier private message, I indicated one such test where I had to lengthen the sleep intervals before following actions were taken (because my system is so slow relative to modern hardware). If I didn't mention the specific test, it had to do with making sure the "guild" compiler would clean up after itself if interrupted. On the PWS, it was taking a few more seconds for the interrupt to be received and processed than the test originally allowed. You wouldn't have seen or experienced that particular problem on any of the "buildd" systems. --Bob
Re: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 01:59:36PM +1300, Michael Cree wrote: > (...) It passes more often than not and > only fails occasionally. I see that there is a patch in the > debian/patches directory to avoid a race condition in this test. > But I don't know guile so don't understand the code. There are a few of the "guile" tests that have some timing aspects where sometimes you "win" the race, and other times you "lose". In an earlier private message, I indicated one such test where I had to lengthen the sleep intervals before following actions were taken (because my system is so slow relative to modern hardware). If I didn't mention the specific test, it had to do with making sure the "guild" compiler would clean up after itself if interrupted. On the PWS, it was taking a few more seconds for the interrupt to be received and processed than the test originally allowed. You wouldn't have seen or experienced that particular problem on any of the "buildd" systems. --Bob
Re: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 12:10:28PM +1300, Michael Cree wrote:
> ERROR: 00-repl-server.test: repl-server: HTTP inter-protocol attack -
> arguments: ((system-error "fport_write" "~A" ("Broken pipe") (32)))
>
> Bob: how did you get past this test or did it pass on your build?
It passed on mine. I didn't save the build log for the 2.0 build,
but here's the relevant section of the 2.2 build log:
(...)
make check-TESTS
make[4]: Entering directory '/opt/downloads/work/guile-2.2/guile-2.2-2.2.6+1'
Testing /opt/downloads/work/guile-2.2/guile-2.2-2.2.6+1/meta/guile ...
with GUILE_LOAD_PATH=/opt/downloads/work/guile-2.2/guile-2.2-2.2.6+1/test-suite
Running 00-initial-env.test
Running 00-repl-server.test
Running 00-socket.test
Running alist.test
(...)
--Bob
Re: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 12:10:28PM +1300, Michael Cree wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 02:15:30PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> I've done a test on an XP1000 (UP) and it got past the failure seen
> on the buildds but errored out in one of 4 or so tests in the
> test suite.
>
> Relevant line in log:
>
> ERROR: 00-repl-server.test: repl-server: HTTP inter-protocol attack -
> arguments: ((system-error "fport_write" "~A" ("Broken pipe") (32)))
I've worked out how to run the test manually. Just run:
./check-guile 00-repl-server.test
in the guile build directory. It passes more often than not and
only fails occasionally. I see that there is a patch in the
debian/patches directory to avoid a race condition in this test.
But I don't know guile so don't understand the code.
I could try building again and hope we get a successful build soon...
Cheers,
Michael.
Re: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 02:15:30PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 11/26/19 4:49 AM, Michael Cree wrote:
> > Taking it that you did use up to date toolchain then that is rather
> > interesting that guile-2.0 built for you. I ran a test rebuild a
> > week or two ago and it failed.
> >
> > Maybe I should try again, but if it fails for me again that would
> > raise issues of:
> >
> > - UP versus SMP since I test built on an SMP system.
> >
> > - sbuild environment.
> >
> > I will set a test rebuild going again soon and report back.
>
> If it's indeed an issue of UMP vs SMP again like we have for openjdk-8, we
> can just blacklist guile-2.0 and guile-2.2 on electro and imago and have
> it built on tsunami only which is a UMP machine.
I've done a test on an XP1000 (UP) and it got past the failure seen
on the buildds but errored out in one of 4 or so tests in the
test suite.
Relevant line in log:
ERROR: 00-repl-server.test: repl-server: HTTP inter-protocol attack -
arguments: ((system-error "fport_write" "~A" ("Broken pipe") (32)))
Bob: how did you get past this test or did it pass on your build?
Cheers,
Michael.
a home-made install CDROM with QLOGIC firmware [was : Re: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22]
Hi, I wonder if the (untested) simple recipe below would work. It would confirm that the missing QLOGIC firmware was indeed the culprit. I hope it will help ! Regards, JH Chatenet # download firmware-qlogic apt-get download firmware-qlogic # become root (to preserve rights) su - # install genisoimage (if not already) apt-get install genisoimage # mount the CD image mkdir my-mount-point && mount -o ro,loop debian-10.0-alpha-NETINST-1.iso my-mount-point # extract the initramfs mkdir my_workdir1 && cd my_workdir1 zcat ../my-mount-point/boot/initrd.gz | cpio -idv # add some firmwares dpkg --fsys-tarfile ../firmware-qlogic_20190717-2_all.deb \ | tar -xvf - ./lib/firmware/qlogic/1040.bin \ ./lib/firmware/qlogic/1280.bin \ ./lib/firmware/qlogic/12160.bin # rebuild the initramfs find . | sort | cpio --create -H newc | gzip -v9 > ../initrd.gz cd .. # rebuild the cdrom image mkdir my_workdir2 (cd my-mount-point && tar -cf - .) | (cd my_workdir2 && tar -xvf -) umount my-mount-point rm my_workdir2/boot/initrd.gz cp -a initrd.gz my_workdir2/boot/ genisoimage -o debian-10.0-alpha-NETINST-1-fw.iso -r -J -joliet-long \ -cache-inodes -l -alpha-boot boot/bootlx \ -V 'Debian 10.0 alpha w fw' my_workdir2
Re: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22
On 11/26/19 4:49 AM, Michael Cree wrote: > Taking it that you did use up to date toolchain then that is rather > interesting that guile-2.0 built for you. I ran a test rebuild a > week or two ago and it failed. > > Maybe I should try again, but if it fails for me again that would > raise issues of: > > - UP versus SMP since I test built on an SMP system. > > - sbuild environment. > > I will set a test rebuild going again soon and report back. If it's indeed an issue of UMP vs SMP again like we have for openjdk-8, we can just blacklist guile-2.0 and guile-2.2 on electro and imago and have it built on tsunami only which is a UMP machine. Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Re: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22
On 11/27/19 8:13 AM, Darren Goossens wrote: > I am thinking I am going to have to make my own installer, since > apparently the DFSG prevent the requisite firmware going on the disk. No, it's not the DFSG. It's my lack of time to patch the debian-cd package to support building firmware images for Debian Ports architectures. I am planning to get this resolved during the Christmas holidays. Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Re: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22
Just recording this simpleton's experience. I booted the 22 Nov image. AlphaServer1200 It boots fine, but asks for qlogic 1040.bin firmware on removable media. The system has a PCI card that controls an IDE HDD and an IDE CDRW, plus a SCSI CDROM (that I boot off) plus a floppy drive plus a PCI USB card and a few SCSI HDD. the boot messages show the USB -- including identifying the device, eg SanDisk CRUZ. But when I try to load the firmware from removable media (USB, floppy, CD), there is no evidence of any removable media even being accessed/polled. No CD lights come on, no floppy light comes on, no USB stick LEDs come on. It does initialise the network (DEC tulip). I tried putting s CD with firmware into the SCSI CDROM drive and mounting it manually on /cdrom, but the installer still does not see it, though I can look at it in the shell. I am thinking I am going to have to make my own installer, since apparently the DFSG prevent the requisite firmware going on the disk. I'm not a complete newbie, but I am not a developer or sysadmin. I've read around a bit, but a pointer to the most useful guide to adding stuff to the iso and burning my own version would be helpful. I assume I have to mount the iso, unpack the initramfs image and add stuff in there, but it's a bit daunting. I'm not asking anyone to do it for me, but an pointer to a good tutorial or how-to would help. I've found some stuff on the Debian pages and elsewhere, but no luck so far. Cheerio Darren
Re: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22
(This is a separate copy to the list, just to keep everyone informed.
No attachment included.)
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 04:49:15PM +1300, Michael Cree wrote:
> I don't seem to have received that message.
I'll try sending again just to you... The attached "packages" file was
on the order of 500k, and it's possible an upstream mailer got offended
at the message size. In *this* letter, I'll append the list gzipped.
Here's the relevant portion of that earlier posting:
gcc is version 9.2.1 (Debian 9.2.1-19)
ld is version 2.33.1 (binutils 2.33.1-4)
kernel version is 5.3.0 built from the kernel.org source tree
Other packages are as in the attached "packages" file ("dpkg -l"
output).
Started the "guile-2.2" build. So far, so good after 12+ hours :-).
--Bob
Re: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 07:02:15PM -0600, Bob Tracy wrote: > On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:00:59PM +1300, Michael Cree wrote: > > Did you build with latest toolchain? I suspect the issue has > > appeared with toolchain changes (hard to pin down when because there > > was quite a period in which a new version of guile-2.0 was not > > uploaded). > > I think I answered the toolchain question in my reply to Adrian's > earlier message. There was an attached "packages" file with the complete > list of what I've got installed on the PWS. I don't seem to have received that message. Taking it that you did use up to date toolchain then that is rather interesting that guile-2.0 built for you. I ran a test rebuild a week or two ago and it failed. Maybe I should try again, but if it fails for me again that would raise issues of: - UP versus SMP since I test built on an SMP system. - sbuild environment. I will set a test rebuild going again soon and report back. > are only loosely specified (e.g., >= some value), are the dependencies > considered "best" satisfied with a stable package version meeting the > requirement? Or is the current unstable version of a dependency > preferred when building for "sid"? Many variables to consider, I guess. Yes, built against up to date sid. Cheers Michael.
Re: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:00:59PM +1300, Michael Cree wrote: > Did you build with latest toolchain? I suspect the issue has > appeared with toolchain changes (hard to pin down when because there > was quite a period in which a new version of guile-2.0 was not > uploaded). > > And the bug (a segfault when texi documentation is built with the > recently built guild executable) looks to be present elsewhere too > (take a look at #941218 where comment #10 seen on Ubuntu looks > suspiciously like what we see on Alpha assuming it occurs at the > same place). I think I answered the toolchain question in my reply to Adrian's earlier message. There was an attached "packages" file with the complete list of what I've got installed on the PWS. > Unless built in clean chroot with only the build dependencies installed > and with an up to date toolchain they won't be much use to us. The toolchain is up-to-date, but I don't have the infrastructure to support a clean chroot environment, even on another local system if I were to try and use a cross-compiler vs. a native build. In reference to the build dependencies, if particular versions aren't specified, or are only loosely specified (e.g., >= some value), are the dependencies considered "best" satisfied with a stable package version meeting the requirement? Or is the current unstable version of a dependency preferred when building for "sid"? Many variables to consider, I guess. --Bob
Re: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 06:40:04AM -0600, Bob Tracy wrote: > On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 07:36:11AM +1300, Michael Cree wrote: > > That's not going to help at the moment because vim is bd-uninstallable. > > > > The real problem is guile-2.0 and guile-2.2, both of which FTBFS, and > > are blocking the building of many other packages. > > I downloaded the Debian source for "guile-2.0_2.0.13+1-5.3" and successfully > built the binary packages on my PWS-433au without having to modify anything. > My guess is some kind of toolchain or other build environment issue on > the "buildd" servers. Did you build with latest toolchain? I suspect the issue has appeared with toolchain changes (hard to pin down when because there was quite a period in which a new version of guile-2.0 was not uploaded). And the bug (a segfault when texi documentation is built with the recently built guild executable) looks to be present elsewhere too (take a look at #941218 where comment #10 seen on Ubuntu looks suspiciously like what we see on Alpha assuming it occurs at the same place). > Michael -- I've got the following ".deb" packages available, and you're > welcome to them if they would be of any help getting us unstuck: Unless built in clean chroot with only the build dependencies installed and with an up to date toolchain they won't be much use to us. Cheers, Michael.
RE: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22
Thanks. That answers my question ;-) I was thinking if they were on GitLab or similar one could pull intermediate builds for testing. If someone could kindly provide the link for issues for Alpha that would be most helpful. =Skye -Original Message- From: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz [mailto:glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de] Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 8:44 AM To: Skye; 'Bob Tracy'; 'Michael Cree'; debian-alpha@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22 On 11/25/19 4:41 PM, Skye wrote: > Are the build servers for Alpha public facing? I plan to test install on > Alpha in a few day and having access to the code and environment could prove > useful. What do you mean with "public facing"? They are on the internet, of course, but they are not publicly accessible for obvious reasons. Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Re: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22
Hi Bob! On 11/25/19 1:40 PM, Bob Tracy wrote: > I downloaded the Debian source for "guile-2.0_2.0.13+1-5.3" and successfully > built the binary packages on my PWS-433au without having to modify anything. > My guess is some kind of toolchain or other build environment issue on > the "buildd" servers. What build environment did you use? Were you on the latest version of gcc-9 and binutils? Was the default compiler gcc-9 or anything lower? > Michael -- I've got the following ".deb" packages available, and you're > welcome to them if they would be of any help getting us unstuck: > > guile-2.0_2.0.13+1-5.3_alpha.deb > guile-2.0-libs_2.0.13+1-5.3_alpha.deb > guile-2.0-dev_2.0.13+1-5.3_alpha.deb > guile-2.0-libs-dbgsym_2.0.13+1-5.3_alpha.deb > guile-2.0-doc_2.0.13+1-5.3_all.deb > > Just need a place to upload them where you can get to them, or I could > send them as e-mail attachments if all else fails: the "libs" package is > the largest at 2,262,128 bytes. In order to be able to use them, you need the .changes and .buildinfo files as well. And the build must not include the all.deb package, only the architecture-dependent packages. Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
RE: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22
Are the build servers for Alpha public facing? I plan to test install on Alpha in a few day and having access to the code and environment could prove useful. =Skye -Original Message- From: Bob Tracy [mailto:r...@frus.com] Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 5:40 AM To: Michael Cree; John Paul Adrian Glaubitz; debian-alpha@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22 On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 07:36:11AM +1300, Michael Cree wrote: > That's not going to help at the moment because vim is bd-uninstallable. > > The real problem is guile-2.0 and guile-2.2, both of which FTBFS, and > are blocking the building of many other packages. I downloaded the Debian source for "guile-2.0_2.0.13+1-5.3" and successfully built the binary packages on my PWS-433au without having to modify anything. My guess is some kind of toolchain or other build environment issue on the "buildd" servers. Michael -- I've got the following ".deb" packages available, and you're welcome to them if they would be of any help getting us unstuck: guile-2.0_2.0.13+1-5.3_alpha.deb guile-2.0-libs_2.0.13+1-5.3_alpha.deb guile-2.0-dev_2.0.13+1-5.3_alpha.deb guile-2.0-libs-dbgsym_2.0.13+1-5.3_alpha.deb guile-2.0-doc_2.0.13+1-5.3_all.deb Just need a place to upload them where you can get to them, or I could send them as e-mail attachments if all else fails: the "libs" package is the largest at 2,262,128 bytes. I'll get started on trying to build "guile-2.2" later today. --Bob
Re: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22
On 11/25/19 4:41 PM, Skye wrote: > Are the build servers for Alpha public facing? I plan to test install on > Alpha in a few day and having access to the code and environment could prove > useful. What do you mean with "public facing"? They are on the internet, of course, but they are not publicly accessible for obvious reasons. Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Re: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22
On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 07:36:11AM +1300, Michael Cree wrote: > That's not going to help at the moment because vim is bd-uninstallable. > > The real problem is guile-2.0 and guile-2.2, both of which FTBFS, and > are blocking the building of many other packages. I downloaded the Debian source for "guile-2.0_2.0.13+1-5.3" and successfully built the binary packages on my PWS-433au without having to modify anything. My guess is some kind of toolchain or other build environment issue on the "buildd" servers. Michael -- I've got the following ".deb" packages available, and you're welcome to them if they would be of any help getting us unstuck: guile-2.0_2.0.13+1-5.3_alpha.deb guile-2.0-libs_2.0.13+1-5.3_alpha.deb guile-2.0-dev_2.0.13+1-5.3_alpha.deb guile-2.0-libs-dbgsym_2.0.13+1-5.3_alpha.deb guile-2.0-doc_2.0.13+1-5.3_all.deb Just need a place to upload them where you can get to them, or I could send them as e-mail attachments if all else fails: the "libs" package is the largest at 2,262,128 bytes. I'll get started on trying to build "guile-2.2" later today. --Bob
Re: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22
On 11/24/19 9:53 PM, rkn wrote: > Unfortunately, it now fails during the base system install, there seems to be > something > wrong with the whiptail package. It doesn't give a specific error. Yes, it's the broken vim package that needs to be fixed as I mentioned in my initial mail. vim is considered an essential package and installation won't finish if it's not installable. Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Re: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22
Thank you for the help, I've re-downloaded and re-burned the image, I must have been using an older version because it does now sense the hardware. Unfortunately, it now fails during the base system install, there seems to be something wrong with the whiptail package. It doesn't give a specific error. Installation media integrity check passes. On 11/23/2019 6:18 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: On 11/23/19 1:04 AM, rkn wrote: I'm reporting the exact readout that the system gives me when I run uname -a, I don't know anything more than that and I've done nothing to the image but burn it. The error states that it is probably due to a mismatch between the kernel the installer uses and the kernel available in the archive. The installer can't see anything that isn't the same version as itself. Yes, I'm aware of what this error means. I'm using the ISO image from the pool, I'm installing from a CD to a raw disk on a system that does not have Linux on it. Can you list the CD contents of pool-alpha/main/l/linux? I'm using it on the video output of the DS10L I'm trying to set it up on (using aboot option 0), I can reboot and run aboot option 1 and copy it from the terminal if you need a specific/complete listing. An example is: srm-modules-5.2.0-2-alpha-generic-di_5.2.9-2_alpha.udeb. The other contents are *-modules-5.2.0-2-alpha-generic-di_5.2.9-2_alpha.udeb. If it lists 5.2.9-2, you are using the wrong image. I just again verified the ISO from [1] and it definitely has 5.3.9-3 udebs in it. Adrian [1] https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/ports/2019-11-22/debian-10.0-alpha-NETINST-1.iso
Re: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22
On 11/23/19 1:04 AM, rkn wrote: > I'm reporting the exact readout that the system gives me when I run uname -a, > I don't know anything more than that and I've done nothing to the image but > burn it. The error states that it is probably due to a mismatch between the > kernel the installer uses and the kernel available in the archive. The > installer can't see anything that isn't the same version as itself. Yes, I'm aware of what this error means. >>> I'm using the ISO image from the pool, I'm installing from a CD to a >>> raw disk on a system that does not have Linux on it. >> Can you list the CD contents of pool-alpha/main/l/linux? > I'm using it on the video output of the DS10L I'm trying to set it up on > (using aboot option 0), I can reboot and run aboot option 1 and copy it > from the terminal if you need a specific/complete listing. > An example is: srm-modules-5.2.0-2-alpha-generic-di_5.2.9-2_alpha.udeb. > The other contents are *-modules-5.2.0-2-alpha-generic-di_5.2.9-2_alpha.udeb. If it lists 5.2.9-2, you are using the wrong image. I just again verified the ISO from [1] and it definitely has 5.3.9-3 udebs in it. Adrian > [1] > https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/ports/2019-11-22/debian-10.0-alpha-NETINST-1.iso -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Re: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22
On 11/23/2019 8:41 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: On 11/23/19 12:24 AM, rkn wrote: uname -a gives: 5.3.0-2-alpha-generic and Debian 5.3.9-2 (2019-11-12). Exact error message is that no kernel modules can be found. But the ISO image contains the correct module packages. I just verified that again. I'm reporting the exact readout that the system gives me when I run uname -a, I don't know anything more than that and I've done nothing to the image but burn it. The error states that it is probably due to a mismatch between the kernel the installer uses and the kernel available in the archive. The installer can't see anything that isn't the same version as itself. I'm using the ISO image from the pool, I'm installing from a CD to a raw disk on a system that does not have Linux on it. Can you list the CD contents of pool-alpha/main/l/linux? I'm using it on the video output of the DS10L I'm trying to set it up on (using aboot option 0), I can reboot and run aboot option 1 and copy it from the terminal if you need a specific/complete listing. An example is: srm-modules-5.2.0-2-alpha-generic-di_5.2.9-2_alpha.udeb. The other contents are *-modules-5.2.0-2-alpha-generic-di_5.2.9-2_alpha.udeb. Adrian
Re: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22
On 11/23/19 12:24 AM, rkn wrote: > uname -a gives: 5.3.0-2-alpha-generic and Debian 5.3.9-2 (2019-11-12). Exact > error message is that no kernel modules can be found. But the ISO image contains the correct module packages. I just verified that again. > I'm using the ISO image from the pool, I'm installing from a CD to a raw disk > on a system that does not have Linux on it. Can you list the CD contents of pool-alpha/main/l/linux? Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Re: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22
uname -a gives: 5.3.0-2-alpha-generic and Debian 5.3.9-2 (2019-11-12). Exact error message is that no kernel modules can be found. I'm using the ISO image from the pool, I'm installing from a CD to a raw disk on a system that does not have Linux on it. On 11/23/2019 7:47 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: On 11/22/19 11:41 PM, rkn wrote: Alpha installer errors with a mismatch between installer kernel version and archive kernel version. Are you sure about that? I just checked the CD image contents in pool-alpha/ main/l/linux/ and the udebs have the correct version number which is 5.3.9-3. What kernel version does "uname -a" report? Did you boot your own custom kernel? Adrian
Re: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22
On 11/22/19 11:41 PM, rkn wrote: > Alpha installer errors with a mismatch between installer kernel version and > archive kernel version. Are you sure about that? I just checked the CD image contents in pool-alpha/ main/l/linux/ and the udebs have the correct version number which is 5.3.9-3. What kernel version does "uname -a" report? Did you boot your own custom kernel? Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Re: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22
Alpha installer errors with a mismatch between installer kernel version and archive kernel version. On 11/22/2019 7:23 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: Hi! I just uploaded updated installation images 2019-07-22 for the following Debian Ports architectures [1]: * alpha * hppa * ia64 * m68k * powerpc * ppc64 * sparc64 debian-installer images for netboot and sh4 can be found in [2]. I have successfully tested the sparc64 image, but not the other images, so the issue with the kernel module versions mismatch has been fixed. The images for alpha and ia64 could have issues because of the missing vim package [3]. Someone needs to have a look at vim on these two architectures. [1] https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/ports/2019-11-22/ [2] https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/ports/debian-installer/ [3] https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=vim=sid Adrian
Re: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 03:09:09PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 11/22/19 2:40 PM, Bob Tracy wrote: > > I've noticed I haven't been able to update the "vim" packages for a long > > time. Michael Cree -- if you see this, I think you explained the > > problem to me many moons ago. In any event, there has been a held > > update to "vim-common" on alpha for at *least* the past year. We seem > > to be stuck at version "2:8.1.0875-5". > > Someone needs to fix the testsuite on alpha: > > > https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=vim=alpha=2%3A8.1.2136-1=1570855095=0 That's not going to help at the moment because vim is bd-uninstallable. The real problem is guile-2.0 and guile-2.2, both of which FTBFS, and are blocking the building of many other packages. Cheers Michael.
Re: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22
Hi! On 11/22/19 2:40 PM, Bob Tracy wrote: > I've noticed I haven't been able to update the "vim" packages for a long > time. Michael Cree -- if you see this, I think you explained the > problem to me many moons ago. In any event, there has been a held > update to "vim-common" on alpha for at *least* the past year. We seem > to be stuck at version "2:8.1.0875-5". Someone needs to fix the testsuite on alpha: > https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=vim=alpha=2%3A8.1.2136-1=1570855095=0 Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Re: Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 11:23:10AM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > (...) > The images for alpha and ia64 could have issues because of the missing > vim package [3]. Someone needs to have a look at vim on these two > architectures. > > (...) > > [3] https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=vim=sid I've noticed I haven't been able to update the "vim" packages for a long time. Michael Cree -- if you see this, I think you explained the problem to me many moons ago. In any event, there has been a held update to "vim-common" on alpha for at *least* the past year. We seem to be stuck at version "2:8.1.0875-5". --Bob
Updated installation images for Debian Ports 2019-11-22
Hi! I just uploaded updated installation images 2019-07-22 for the following Debian Ports architectures [1]: * alpha * hppa * ia64 * m68k * powerpc * ppc64 * sparc64 debian-installer images for netboot and sh4 can be found in [2]. I have successfully tested the sparc64 image, but not the other images, so the issue with the kernel module versions mismatch has been fixed. The images for alpha and ia64 could have issues because of the missing vim package [3]. Someone needs to have a look at vim on these two architectures. > [1] https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/ports/2019-11-22/ > [2] https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/ports/debian-installer/ > [3] https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=vim=sid Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
