Bug#779482: severity of 779482 is grave

[tmancill]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:44:48AM +0100, pini wrote:
> Control: tag -1 pending
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 14:12:26 +0200 Gilles Filippini  wrote:
> > The release 2.3.2-1 in experimental was finally tested on a baremetal
> > ppc64el machine, and it works [1]. Many thanks to Frédéric Bonnard.
> > 
> > [1] 
> 
> Release 2.3.2-3~exp4 in experimental was successfully tested on powerpc,
> ppc64el, and s390x porter boxes.
> 
> Tony, can I upload to unstable? I'll then upload libjogl2-java and scilab.

Hi Gilles,

That sounds great.  Thank you for your work on this.

Cheers,
tony


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#779482: severity of 779482 is grave

[pini]

Control: tag -1 pending

Hi,

On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 14:12:26 +0200 Gilles Filippini  wrote:
> The release 2.3.2-1 in experimental was finally tested on a baremetal
> ppc64el machine, and it works [1]. Many thanks to Frédéric Bonnard.
> 
> [1] 

Release 2.3.2-3~exp4 in experimental was successfully tested on powerpc,
ppc64el, and s390x porter boxes.

Tony, can I upload to unstable? I'll then upload libjogl2-java and scilab.

Thanks,

_g.

Processed: Re: Bug#779482: severity of 779482 is grave

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> tag -1 pending
Bug #779482 [libgluegen2-rt-java] support for powerpc, ppc64el and s390x not 
complete
Added tag(s) pending.

-- 
779482: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=779482
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#779482: severity of 779482 is grave

[Gilles Filippini]

On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 17:42:23 +0200 Markus Koschany  wrote:
> Control: forwarded -1 https://jogamp.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1246
> 
> On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 23:53:17 +0200 Gilles Filippini  wrote:
> > For the record, I've pinged upstream and proposed a patch for ppc64el.
> > The good news is they seem responsive [1].
> > 
> > [1] 
> > 
> > Unfortunately I couldn't test the usability of my patch yet, because I
> > didn't succeed with remote X display on ppc64el porterboxes :/

The release 2.3.2-1 in experimental was finally tested on a baremetal
ppc64el machine, and it works [1]. Many thanks to Frédéric Bonnard.

[1] 

_g.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#779482: severity of 779482 is grave

[Markus Koschany]

Control: forwarded -1 https://jogamp.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1246

On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 23:53:17 +0200 Gilles Filippini  wrote:
> For the record, I've pinged upstream and proposed a patch for ppc64el.
> The good news is they seem responsive [1].
> 
> [1] 
> 
> Unfortunately I couldn't test the usability of my patch yet, because I
> didn't succeed with remote X display on ppc64el porterboxes :/
> 

Thank you for contacting upstream and offering a patch. If your patch
gets accepted, we can resolve this issue by packaging the next upstream
release. Should this not happen for whatever reasons, we can still
remove ppc64el from the list of supported architectures.

Regards,

Markus



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Processed: Re: Bug#779482: severity of 779482 is grave

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> forwarded -1 https://jogamp.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1246
Bug #779482 [libgluegen2-rt-java] support for powerpc, ppc64el and s390x not 
complete
Set Bug forwarded-to-address to 
'https://jogamp.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1246'.

-- 
779482: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=779482
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#779482: severity of 779482 is grave

[Gilles Filippini]

For the record, I've pinged upstream and proposed a patch for ppc64el.
The good news is they seem responsive [1].

[1] 

Unfortunately I couldn't test the usability of my patch yet, because I
didn't succeed with remote X display on ppc64el porterboxes :/

thanks,

_g.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#779482: severity of 779482 is grave

[Gilles Filippini]

Markus Koschany a écrit le 05/10/2015 13:02 :
> Am 05.10.2015 um 12:48 schrieb Emmanuel Bourg:
>> Le 05/10/2015 12:18, Markus Koschany a écrit :
> I think it's ok to initially build with arch:any as long as there is
> sufficient support from upstream. However if it turns out that some
> arch-dependent packages are unusable and upstream does not intend to fix
> this, we should not claim that we can. I think restricting the build to
> supported architectures is sensible then.
> 
> Like I said I don't know if those architectures are supported now. Back
> in April Tony wrote that upstream has started to work on architecture
> support.
> 
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=779482#21
> 
> Perhaps something has changed in the latest version?

Yes, support was added for some architectures. Unfortunately not for
ppc64el.

BTW building gluegen2 for unsupported architectures leads to bugs like
#798652. It is quite misleading for our users to see scilab available on
ppc64el while not functional at all.

Thanks,

_g.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#779482: severity of 779482 is grave

[Markus Koschany]

Am 05.10.2015 um 12:48 schrieb Emmanuel Bourg:
> Le 05/10/2015 12:18, Markus Koschany a écrit :
> 
>> I think we should determine if upstream supports ppc64el. If not, it is
>> reasonable to remove ppc64el and other affected ports from the
>> Architecture field.
> 
> I don't know, for some packages we do not exclude the unsupported
> architectures explicitly so the builders can attempt the build and
> identify the portability issue. For example with openjfx, I initially
> restricted the build to i386/amd64 but I was later asked to remove the
> limitation (#765397).


I think it's ok to initially build with arch:any as long as there is
sufficient support from upstream. However if it turns out that some
arch-dependent packages are unusable and upstream does not intend to fix
this, we should not claim that we can. I think restricting the build to
supported architectures is sensible then.

Like I said I don't know if those architectures are supported now. Back
in April Tony wrote that upstream has started to work on architecture
support.

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=779482#21

Perhaps something has changed in the latest version?

Markus



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#779482: severity of 779482 is grave

[Emmanuel Bourg]

Le 05/10/2015 12:18, Markus Koschany a écrit :

> I think we should determine if upstream supports ppc64el. If not, it is
> reasonable to remove ppc64el and other affected ports from the
> Architecture field.

I don't know, for some packages we do not exclude the unsupported
architectures explicitly so the builders can attempt the build and
identify the portability issue. For example with openjfx, I initially
restricted the build to i386/amd64 but I was later asked to remove the
limitation (#765397).

Emmanuel Bourg

Bug#779482: severity of 779482 is grave

[Markus Koschany]

Am 05.10.2015 um 12:07 schrieb Emmanuel Bourg:
> On Sun, 04 Oct 2015 17:10:40 +0200 Gilles Filippini  wrote:
> 
>> Setting back severity to grave because ppc64el is an official
>> architecture since novembre 2014 and there is no point in providing
>> gluegen2 for ppc64el if it is unusable.
> 
> On the other hand, the affected architectures have a combined popcon of
> 0.3%. I don't think it's fair to push the severity to serious and risk a
> removal that would affect all the other architectures.

I think we should determine if upstream supports ppc64el. If not, it is
reasonable to remove ppc64el and other affected ports from the
Architecture field.

Regards,

Markus






signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#779482: severity of 779482 is grave

[Emmanuel Bourg]

On Sun, 04 Oct 2015 17:10:40 +0200 Gilles Filippini  wrote:

> Setting back severity to grave because ppc64el is an official
> architecture since novembre 2014 and there is no point in providing
> gluegen2 for ppc64el if it is unusable.

On the other hand, the affected architectures have a combined popcon of
0.3%. I don't think it's fair to push the severity to serious and risk a
removal that would affect all the other architectures.

Emmanuel Bourg