Re: ruby1.9 still fails to build on hppa
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:27:16 +0200 "Thibaut VARENE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > こんにちは みんなさん :-) > We can certainly provide access to hppa machines, see > http://www.parisc-linux.org/cluster.html, especially to someone > willing to help making things work ;-) Okay, thanks Thibaut! That sounds good. So, Yugui, can you do anything for this issue on the machines that listed above? (or needs to call for ruby-hppa maintainers on ruby-dev? I think people who maintain ruby on ia64 or something would be interested). (maybe ;) -- Regards, Hideki Yamane henrich @ debian.or.jp/iijmio-mail.jp http://wiki.debian.org/HidekiYamane -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ruby1.9 still fails to build on hppa
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:27:16 +0200 "Thibaut VARENE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > こんにちは みんなさん :-) > We can certainly provide access to hppa machines, see > http://www.parisc-linux.org/cluster.html, especially to someone > willing to help making things work ;-) Okay, thanks Thibaut! That sounds good. So, Yugui, can you work for this issue on the machines that listed above? (or needs to call for ruby-hppa maintainers on ruby-dev? I think people who maintain ruby on ia64 or something would be interested (maybe).) -- Regards, Hideki Yamane henrich @ debian.or.jp/iijmio-mail.jp http://wiki.debian.org/HidekiYamane -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
status of ruby1.9 on hppa
Dear Security team, we need your input on the ruby1.9/hppa situation (documented in #478717). Problem: Ruby 1.9 is the current "development" version of Ruby. It is supposed to become the "stable" version in december. It works well on all arches except hppa. ruby1.9 isn't autobuildable on lenny: it triggers a kernel issue, likely to be caused by hppa's partial NPTL support. The result is a few kernel backtraces, and sometimes a kernel panic. Current status: ruby1.9 is in lenny. It is likely that the current (outdated) version was hand-built by a porter. It is possible to build the current unstable version using a 2.6.22.19 kernel. (that has been done, but the version hasn't been uploaded so far). Possible solutions: (A) accept the hand-built packages into lenny. When a security update for ruby1.9 will be necessary, that update will have to be hand-built on hppa, on a machine with a suitable kernel. (B) drop ruby1.9 on hppa. That requires NMUing a dozen of packages that depend or build-depend on ruby1.9, including rrdtool, to either drop the dependancy on ruby1.9 on hppa, or drop it completely on all arches. (C) drop hppa as a release arch. After all, there are no active porter except people willing to provide access to systems (which is nice, but clearly not enough to keep hppa in a reasonable state), no developer-accessible machine admined by DSA, a 2.6.26 SMP kernel that doesn't boot, etc. == Relevant threads: on -release, with list of packages that would need to be NMUed: http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2008/07/msg00298.html subthread about the kernel issues: http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2008/07/msg00391.html on -hppa, about releasing lenny with hppa (or not): http://lists.debian.org/debian-hppa/2008/07/msg00044.html So, security team, what do you want? In the meantime, I'll start to implement (A) (ie, uploading an hand-built ruby1.9, and the other missing ruby packages on hppa). This is not a regression from the the current situation (outdated ruby1.9 packages that can crash the buildd anyway). -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: status of ruby1.9 on hppa
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 06:58:54PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Dear Security team, Hi all, > ruby1.9 isn't autobuildable on lenny: it triggers a kernel issue, likely > to be caused by hppa's partial NPTL support. The result is a few kernel > backtraces, and sometimes a kernel panic. as far as I can tall, Carlos O'Donnell is working on adding NPTL support to HPPA without breaking linuxthread compatibility, which is considered a requirement to skip a major libc transition. Of course this work is not targeted to lenny. cheers, Domenico -[ Domenico Andreoli, aka cavok --[ http://www.dandreoli.com/gpgkey.asc ---[ 3A0F 2F80 F79C 678A 8936 4FEE 0677 9033 A20E BC50 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web site
Dear:Debian-hppa If you're wondering why you're online business is not doing as well as you would like - the answer is web traffic. Basically - you need a lot more visibility. Email us today at [EMAIL PROTECTED] We will take a look at your site and give you an assessment free of charge. It doesn't have to cost a fortune to make business happen online. Be sure to include all of your URL(s) and how you prefer we contact you. Sincerely, Lily Zey -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: status of ruby1.9 on hppa
Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > (A) accept the hand-built packages into lenny. When a security update > for ruby1.9 will be necessary, that update will have to be hand-built on > hppa, on a machine with a suitable kernel. > > (B) drop ruby1.9 on hppa. That requires NMUing a dozen of packages that > depend or build-depend on ruby1.9, including rrdtool, to either drop the > dependancy on ruby1.9 on hppa, or drop it completely on all arches. Given that there's still ruby1.8 on hppa, this seems like the best solution. > (C) drop hppa as a release arch. After all, there are no active porter > except people willing to provide access to systems (which is nice, but > clearly not enough to keep hppa in a reasonable state), no > developer-accessible machine admined by DSA, a 2.6.26 SMP kernel that > doesn't boot, etc. Helge Deller has recent porting work, i.e. the *context() implementations. Given that Debian's the only distribution supporting hppa, dropping it seems not IMHO right, but should be reconsidered if things don't improve until Squeeze. Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web site
Dear:Debian-hppa It was kind of hard for us to find your online business. This means it's hard for others to find you as well. If you want to strengthen your online business, you need to greatly increase targeted web traffic to your site. We can help. We'll take a look at your web site for no charge and show you how you can get crucial web traffic. Email us now at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Include the best way we can reach in your email reply and don't forget to list all your URL(s). Sincerely, Lily Zey -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web site
Dear:Debian-hppa Do you need more targeted web traffic? We can help. Email us now at [EMAIL PROTECTED] In your reply, include your all your web addresses in your reply and how we can contact you. We will give you a free site review and show you why we are the best at getting you the most. Sincerely, Lily Zey -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Status of HPPA in Lenny
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 03:44:07PM -0700, kfitzner wrote: > > The talk in the ruby thread about dropping HPPA from the Lenny architectures > has concerned me. I'm wondering if anything definite has been decided, and > if not, when a decision is likely? I have several HPPA machines in > production and really need to know if I need to start looking at replacing > them. I haven't seen anything definite yet. Some work is still progressing. > If it's worth anything, I could care less if Ruby is dropped from Lenny on > HPPA. It's certainly more valuable to keep the port without it. Can the > popcon data be looked at to see if there are 50 HPPA users on machines > without ruby installed? If so, it would seem to me that the port is worth > keeping regardless. Agreed. Someone just suggested that too. I don't know if I should care about ruby1.9 or things that depend on it since I'm not aware of any dependency. hth, grant -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
