Re: Architecture qualification meeting, scheduling
[ fullquote adding -ports, for people not following -release or -devel ]
On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 06:35:07PM +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am arranging the final architecture qualification meeting for Stretch.
> This is primarily of interest to the release team, but I will also take
> input from porters.
>
> As the schedule is currently wide open, please express your availability in
> the linked Doodle poll. There are 56 slots available, mostly in the European
> evening but a handful are daytime coinciding with the Cambridge
> mini-Debconf.
>
> Porters, please note your architecture in your response ("name (arch)").
>
> About the format of the meeting:
> Much like the Jessie meeting, it will be held via IRC in
> oftc.net/#debian-release and will be primarily a discussion amongst the
> release team. We will evaluate each port on the most up-to-date information
> available to us, and determine if it will be a release architecture for
> Stretch. We may ask for clarification from porters who are present if there
> are points at issue, but we ask that you are read-only otherwise.
>
> http://doodle.com/poll/362qvb89cvu43d4z
Is https://release.debian.org/stretch/arch_qualify.html the up-to-date
information available to you, and the "candidate" line how a decision
would look like based on the current information?
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Re: Bug#845193: dpkg: recent -specs PIE changes break openssl
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 04:35:28PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: >... > On Thu, 2016-11-24 at 14:52:33 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: >... > > Worse, they break *differently* on whether… > > > > >Precisely to make the behavior consistent on all architectures, dpkg > > >enables PIE (conditionally if no other flags marks it as to be > > >disabled) on all architectures were gcc has not enabled this by > > >default. > > > > … that. And that is just plain wrong. Either dpkg should inject > > -specs= stuff on all architectures or on none. Differing like this > > just invites hidden and hard to track down bugs. > > As long as gcc enables PIE on a subset, there will be need to inject > some form of specs on either subset of those arches, either on > hardening=+pie or on hardening=-pie, pick yout poison. :( >... Both gcc and dpkg playing with PIE just increased the number of bugs without bringing any benefit. I fixed many PIE related issues in packages when the gcc change was. And now we got a new batch of FTBFS bugs for cases where the dpkg specs change broke packages using "hardening=+all,-pie". Please do the following: 1. discuss with porters whether PIE is working on their architecture 2. gcc and dpkg maintainers have to agree which package enables PIE > Thanks, > Guillem cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Re: Porter roll call for Debian Bullseye
On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 01:03:17PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 12/1/20 5:02 AM, YunQiang Su wrote: > > I am sorry for the later response. > >Hi, > > > > I am an active porter for the following architectures and I intend > > to continue this for the lifetime of the Bullseye release (est. end > > of 2024): > > > > For mipsel and mips64el, I > > - test most packages on this architecture > > - run a Debian testing or unstable system on port that I use regularly > > - fix toolchain issues > > great ;-) gcc-cross-mipsen and gcc-10-cross-mipsen have never been in > testing ... The main blocker for that seems to be a bug that was fixed in gcc-10 10.2.0-20, a new source upload with the gcc-10-source build dependency bumped to (>= 10.2.0-20~) should fix that. binNMU won't work due to binary-all. > > - triage arch-specific bugs > > - fix arch-related bugs > > any help with #972269 ? I looked into it back then, at least for me there was nothing obvious why dbus-python failed and not other packages. A few months earlier one other package had a similar problem, but it seems rare enough that it shouldn't be a high priority for anyone. cu Adrian
Re: Porter roll call for Debian Bullseye
On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 01:03:17PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 12/1/20 5:02 AM, YunQiang Su wrote: > > I am sorry for the later response. > >Hi, > > > > I am an active porter for the following architectures and I intend > > to continue this for the lifetime of the Bullseye release (est. end > > of 2024): > > > > For mipsel and mips64el, I > > - test most packages on this architecture > > - run a Debian testing or unstable system on port that I use regularly > > - fix toolchain issues > > great ;-) gcc-cross-mipsen and gcc-10-cross-mipsen have never been in > testing ... >... This problem has now been resolved: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/gcc-defaults-mipsen https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/gcc-10-cross-mipsen cu Adrian
Re: unbreaking LibreOffices tests on at least release architectures
On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 09:31:05AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: >... > I won't be of much help here unfortunately, except > maybe testing patches, but then again there's porterboxes >... You are the only one who could realistically debug many of these. E.g. on armel it says: Fatal exception: Signal 6 Stack: /<>/instdir/program/libuno_sal.so.3(+0x3c2e4)[0xb6ec32e4] /<>/instdir/program/libuno_sal.so.3(+0x3c534)[0xb6ec3534] /lib/arm-linux-gnueabi/libc.so.6(__default_rt_sa_restorer+0x0)[0xb6ad58f0] /lib/arm-linux-gnueabi/libc.so.6(+0x7f47c)[0xb6b1e47c] /lib/arm-linux-gnueabi/libc.so.6(gsignal+0x14)[0xb6ad4360] Aborted (core dumped) Fixing something like this would involve generating a backtrace, and then you are likely the only person in Debian who could tell what is actually going on there. There are likely also build or debug tricks you know that a porter would not know. Debugging something like this is only feasible with reasonable effort if a porter who knows the port with its caveats debugs it together with a package maintainer who knows the internals of the package. On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 12:04:45AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: >... > Do you think Debian doesn't have any developers/porters anymore? >... For porters that's actually close to being true. There were times when porter numbers for a release architecture were numbers like 6 or 9. No release architecture in bookworm had more than 2 porters. No porters were required on amd64, the number of distinct people who are listed as porter for one or more of the 8 other bookworm release architecture is 5 DDs and 2 non-DDs. On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 09:31:05AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: >... > For riscv64 I already pointed that out in the thread starting at > https://lists.debian.org/debian-riscv/2023/06/msg0.html, but for the > other architectures there is the mail now. riscv64 is different because > the failures are even more big than any other down below and it's actually a > new architecture anyway. > > Also note I am not talking about the debian-ports architectures. Those I > forgot and I have no problems making them stay into "testsuite ran but > results ignored" set. > > Right now, the only architectures where the test actually work (ignoring the > occassional breakage on arm64 which is fixed upstream since they do > aarch64 flatpak builds) is amd64 and arm64. > > With various different 32-bit, endian and whatever else breakage > ppopping up the other architectures constantly were moved in the set > where the testsuite was run but the results were ignored. For s390x, > where the macros tests hangs it even was in the set where the tests even > were not ran, since a hang then also ends up in > "E: Build killed with signal TERM after 150 minutes of inactivity". > > This was sweeping under the carpet for sure, but this was needed due to > it being a release architecture :( >... For such a complex package I would expect 32bit breakage in every release if upstream no longer tests on 32bit. The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success on architectures not tested by upstream. cu Adrian
Re: unbreaking LibreOffices tests on at least release architectures
On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 11:29:34PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: >... > Am 19.06.23 um 23:19 schrieb Adrian Bunk: >... > > For such a complex package I would expect 32bit breakage in every > > release if upstream no longer tests on 32bit. > Indeed, though at least for 32bit *build* issues they keep fixing them if I > report them. > > The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success > > on architectures not tested by upstream. > > And have Format->Character in Impress crash with Bus error like on mipsel? > That doesn't sound too good for basic quality. > > There is a "smoketest" but it does just basic start. open, close stuff. Not > even basic usage. Let's be realistic regarding the available options, because the one you want is not available. You want every !a*64 architecture to have a porter spending time on fixing libreoffice. And thinking this through, since regressions in new upstream versions are expected to be frequent you want new upstream versions of libreoffice blocked from testing migration by any regression on one architecture until a porter for this architecture has fixed the regression. A new architecture like riscv64 might have enough porters for fixing issues once or for some limited duration. That's it. For each architecture you have the options: 1. declare libreoffice good enough on this architecture, or 2. don't build libreoffice on this architecture There is no third option that architectures will provide porters fixing your package all the time. There are several other packages of comparable complexity, size and testsuite (e.g. mozjs* or rustc). For a successful build they are using either just a smoketest, or a maximum number of tolerable testsuite failures. > Regards, > > Rene cu Adrian
Re: unbreaking LibreOffices tests on at least release architectures
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 05:52:44AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: > Hi, > > Am 19.06.23 um 23:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard: > > > The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success > > > on architectures not tested by upstream. > > > > And have Format->Character in Impress crash with Bus error like on > > mipsel? That doesn't sound too good for basic quality. > > > > There is a "smoketest" but it does just basic start. open, close stuff. > > Not even basic usage. > > That said, that is the smoketest on mipsel: >... Assuming the smoketest currently also fails on riscv64, what about the following: - make all test failures fatal on a*64 (since upstream tests these), and - make smoketest failures fatal on all architectures (including ports) > Regards, > > Rene cu Adrian
Re: LibreOffice bridges/smoketest on mips(64)el (was: Re: unbreaking LibreOffices tests on at least release architectures)
On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 09:31:29PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: > Hi, > > Am 25.06.23 um 13:37 schrieb Rene Engelhard: > > > what about the > > > following: > > > - make all test failures fatal on a*64 (since upstream tests these), and > > > - make smoketest failures fatal on all architectures (including ports) > > That was implemented (+ two more important tests) in experimental. See > https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=libreoffice > > It does > - bridgetest > - smoketest > - pyuno > > What fails for release archs astonishingly is only mips(64)el. It also failed on riscv64 (and powerpc), so that seems to be a criteria that catches the known-broken builds. >... > This test extension to be installed is a Java extension. > So I am running a nojava build on eller now... I don't really like disabling > Java since this opens Pandoras box but for mips64el we probably could do > that. It would also hint at a MIPS problem in LibreOffice, which might or might not be specific to Java. AFAIK OpenJDK on MIPS does not have any known major issues. The Zero build of OpenJDK on MIPS is of course slow, but that's also true on armel where the build succeeded. > Regards, > > Rene cu Adrian BTW: The MIPS-specific discussion should continue on debian-mips instead of debian-ports.
ghc 9.4.7 needs some manual bootstrap on hppa
FYI: - haskell-quickcheck/hppa did FTBFS with ghc 9.4.6 due to #1052306 - ghc >= 9.4.7-1~exp1 uses the the Hadrian build system (due to #1051493) - haskell-hadrian/hppa is uncompiled, blocked by haskell-quickcheck cu Adrian
Re: ghc 9.4.7 needs some manual bootstrap on hppa
On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 04:01:57PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On Tue, 2023-10-24 at 16:27 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > - haskell-quickcheck/hppa did FTBFS with ghc 9.4.6 due to #1052306 > > - ghc >= 9.4.7-1~exp1 uses the the Hadrian build system (due to #1051493) > > - haskell-hadrian/hppa is uncompiled, blocked by haskell-quickcheck > > There have been a number of regressions in GHC upstream unfortunately and > despite > me spending hours over hours into getting those sorted out, I have only been > able > to get GHC to work on sparc64 again. >... 9.4.6 did build on hppa (although not at first attempt), breaking the dependency cycle might be enough to get 9.4.7. > Adrian cu Adrian
Re: ghc 9.4.7 needs some manual bootstrap on hppa
On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 10:21:05AM -0400, John David Anglin wrote: > On 2023-10-24 9:27 a.m., Adrian Bunk wrote: > > FYI: > > > > - haskell-quickcheck/hppa did FTBFS with ghc 9.4.6 due to #1052306 > > - ghc >= 9.4.7-1~exp1 uses the the Hadrian build system (due to #1051493) > > - haskell-hadrian/hppa is uncompiled, blocked by haskell-quickcheck > How did i386 work around this issue? https://tracker.debian.org/news/1471018/accepted-haskell-hadrian-947-3-source-i386-into-unstable/ Architecture: source i386 (I don't know how that binary was built) > I can try building haskell-quickcheck with tests disabled. But if it is > seriously broken, > then this isn't going to work. The issue fixed by [1] did not break everything on i386, but I cannot really judge it. > Dave cu Adrian BTW: Please Cc me on replies. [1] https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/merge_requests/9778
Re: binary only NMUs
On 25 May 2001, James Troup wrote: > Hi, Hi James, > As of today katie now does fascist source-must-exist checking and you > guys are the first to get bitten by it! :-> > > Please follow the bin-only NMU versioning scheme laid out in the > developers reference so your packages can be processed, i.e. foo_2.3-4 > becomes foo_2.3-4.0.1 etc. >... Not to forget: foo_2.3 becomes foo_2.3-0.0.1 (the developers reference says that foo_2.3-0.1 would be the version number for a source NMU) cu Adrian -- A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a "Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble. -- Mahatma Ghandi
The gcc-3.0 ABI changed...
>From the changelog of gcc-3.0_3.0.ds6-0pre010525 (in incoming): * ATTENTION: The ABI (exception handling) changed. No upgrade path from earlier snapshots (you had been warned in the postinst ...) Closing #93597, #94576, #96448, #96461. You have to rebuild cu Adrian -- A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a "Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble. -- Mahatma Ghandi
Re: [Adrian Bunk ] Do the HPPA "binary-only" NMUs violate the GPL?
On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Matt Taggart wrote:
> James Troup writes...
>
> > Grr, guys please don't do this. That's not what binary-only NMUs are
> > for. If you need to make changes to the source, then do a sourceful
> > NMU. As porters you have a lot more leeway WRT permission to do
> > sourceful NMUs (i.e. you don't necessarily have to ask permission,
> > wait silly amounts of time etc.).
>
> I suspect the majority of the cases where this is occurring is when
> config.{sub,guess} needs updating for hppa. When we encounter those we file
> a bug, update those files to the newest upstream version and do a binary-hppa
> upload. We figured that there was no reason to force the other archs to
> recompile and everyone to download the new package, etc. At some point we'll
> need to go back and review all those bugs to make sure they have been dealt
> with.
>
> What do you think? Would a source-NMU be better?
>...
I'd suggest to send a RC bug that contains something like a "when you
make no upload and don't disagree I'll do a (source) NMU in one week".
> Thanks,
cu
Adrian
--
A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a
"Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble.
-- Mahatma Ghandi
