HPPA and Squeeze
Hmm... It's right that some of my comments are rather harsh, though you must know that I'm not speaking from a personal perspective. Personally (and as Release Manager), I would be very happy to have a good working hppa port for Squeeze and beyond. I made sure that the hppa port was included into Lenny even when the Debian System Administrators (DSA), package maintainers, release team members an others were shouting to drop it. I thought it was unfair to drop the port just before the release. They accepted my decision as long as I would make it clear that it was a *big* exception not to be taken lightly. At the time java support was completely dropped, buildds were crashing every other day and support for other programing languages looked poor and the port was still using linuxthreads as the latest of all ports. After the release of Lenny there were still not much signs of improvement to the reliability of the buildds and the move to ntpl (that was going to solve almost all issues the maintainers had) seemed to not happen and not going to solve everything. The only surprising improvement was the regained java support. It's quite disturbing in my honest opinion that only after us starting a thread like this one that we get to know the status of some of the porting efforts and lots of vocal support, but not many visible improvements. Instead of making sure that there is visibile improvement after that, this pattern seems to repeat itself which is not looking very promising. I'm sorry if my and others' frustration is ventilated in some of the mails. The issues with the buildds are lasting for years already with lots of time spent by DSA and others. I still hope that the hppa porters can prove us wrong, fix the kernel issues (which are the probable cause of the unreliability of the buildds), finalise the ntpl move and stay on top of porting issues in Debian in the future. Please let us now focus on improving the status of the hppa port in general and the buildds in particular! Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Openssl
Hi, Can openssl 0.9.8k-3 be pushed to testing? It fixed a number of security issues. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [SRM] Possible upload of adtool
Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 08:21:46PM +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:11:12AM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: 3. as a DM only, can you accept an upload directly or will I need sponsorship? >>> Just try, it should work AFAICS. >> Hmm, it failed because 1.3-1 doesn't have DMUA set. Would you like it on >> mentors.d.n, which will need the upstream .tar.gz with it, or some other >> way? > > ping? I'm aware it's very close to the release date (maybe even too > close already). It would be nice to get this in, but I won't be offended > if you say no. Please do look for a sponsor to upload it. It probably won't make it in this point release, but it can very well make it in the next and be available in proposed-updates in the mean time once uploaded and accepted. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: HPPA and Squeeze
Randolph Chung wrote: > Luk, >> There is no desire to trim working architectures. >> >> It's very easy to tell there is nothing wrong when you don't have to >> deal with unreliable build daemons, endless discussions but no visible >> progress (except for java support) and complaints from DSA, package >> maintainers and others. >> > If you looked at https://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph-big.png I think > it is obvious hppa is not *that* broken. hppa is >95% built. That is not > that bad. Of course, it can be better, but if you looked at this with a > historical perspective the port is really in a pretty good shape. As already was explained, the issue is not that builds don't succeed after multiple tries. The issue is that sometimes multiple tries are needed and sometimes the buildds crash. > If you looked at the status of the toolchain posted to the > gcc-testresults page: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-06/ > you can see that hppa is one of the better architectures out there. Our > results are on par with (if not better than) other supported architectures. I hope that it will show in the reliability of the buildds and the general improvement of support for the hppa port. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: HPPA and Squeeze
Thibaut VARENE wrote: > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Luk Claes wrote: >> John David Anglin wrote: Grant Grundler schrieb: > On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 08:49:26AM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: >> Grant Grundler wrote: >>> I can understand the desire to trim architectures. However, it's clear >>> the current decision was based on some misinformation, and an unclear >>> rational. >> There is no desire to trim working architectures. >> >> It's very easy to tell there is nothing wrong when you don't have to >> deal with unreliable build daemons, endless discussions but no visible >> progress (except for java support) and complaints from DSA, package >> maintainers and others. > > I'm sorry, but this thread is now over 2 weeks old and we yet have to > see a *rationale* motivating the current decision. Not some claims > about bugs (which we still haven't been pointed at, except for the > ruby one, which we addressed already) affecting the buildds (and that > only you experience). Speaking of which, I'm not aware of any problem > affecting lafayette... lafayette is only doing non-sid to make sure we have a buildd that is not heavy loaded and very probable to be able to build all security and stable/oldstable updates... > We have given you tangible elements and have answered each and every > questions that have been raised in this thread. The release team, on > the other hand, failed to answer the single question we've been > asking: what's the rationale for dropping parisc? Please read again, it's only in the beginning of the mail... > I joined Debian many years ago because it seemed to me that it had > proper ethics, in particular because decisions were taken > transparently, and were properly - and openly - discussed before > anything final was settled. I too have invested time and money into > the project. I'm extremely disappointed with the handling of the issue > at stake here. I'm very disappointed at the hppa porters attitudes I must say. They talk a lot, they assumingly work a lot behind the scenes, but they don't seem to know what issues there are within the project nor is there any visible progress unless we prod very hard and even then they are more worried about the way we prod than about proving they are worthy to support the port and show some real progress... > Again, I would like to see a comprehensive rationale for this > decision, so that we can at least try to address the problems at hands > and hope for re-inclusion after squeeze. BTW, can you clarify whether > that would be an option? It's still an option to stay in squeeze like I told before, but we want a clear sign that the port will be supported throughout the whole release cycle (which honestly looks more and more like it could be the case, though I still fail to see why randomly crashing and segfaulting buildds and decreasing support for programming languages before Lenny was not seen as critical enough). Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: HPPA and Squeeze
> It's very easy to tell there is nothing wrong when you don't have to > deal with unreliable build daemons, endless discussions but no visible > progress (except for java support) and complaints from DSA, package > maintainers and others. The problem with the build daemons may be a buggy version of nscd. It causes random problems with uid/gid lookups. This is just a guess based on this report: http://www.nabble.com/Boost-build-failure-on-hppa-td23496708.html I had problems with sshd and dpkg on my c3750 until I disabled nscd. It's now running 2.6.30. It has done a full build and check of GCC several times, and appears to be stable with this kernel. This is with a UP kernel. With SMP kernels, there's still a problem with random segementation faults. These cause application core dumps and are normally logged in /var/log/debug. The frequency of these problems vary with kernel version. I believe that it should be possible to setup a reliable hppa build server running a UP kernel. Dave -- J. David Anglin dave.ang...@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca National Research Council of Canada (613) 990-0752 (FAX: 952-6602) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: removal of sdm source package
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:36:04PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: >Hi, > >On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 04:29:13PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >> >What is your plan and thought? Please let us know. >> >> My plan is to keep the package alive. I dislike its successor by >> same author, ldm, due to its coding style - e.g. hardcoding ssh >> client options inside a tiny C program. >> >> I am right now preparing a new packaging release fixing all bugs >> against the package, including removing the watch file, acknowledging >> that upstream project is dead. > >Good luck. Thanks :-) >I do not like seeing broken testing package hanging for long tome just >to keep package name for you to upload a whole new program after long >delay, though. So I am looking for new one to e uploaded soonish. >Thanks in advance. Sorry, I did not understand above - please rephrase. >> >(I did not see you have followed up any open bug reports on this >> >package. Your last upload of this package is in 2006. This is some >> >package which claims to help security and this does not look nice >> >situation and attracted my attention.) >> >> Please note that none of the bugreports are security-related. > >If maintainer is active, I would like the maintainer to reply even with >short message so everyone else knows what maintainer is doing. Silence >as a maintainer cause worry. Acknowledged. >This is true especially when package is broken in its main >functionality due to missing dependency. Please note that the bugs that I did not respond to in a long time was not related to main functionality. I certainly agree that silence is bad, but the bug regarding lack of Xdialog was filed by Vagrant as a direct consequeence of your contacting him about upstream URL not working. Kind regards, - Jonas - -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEAREDAAYFAko6VwkACgkQn7DbMsAkQLhywQCfaYK30cWbYFwyazl/DOLhCuDJ L3EAoIt4/qTI+scKzJd2rWY2GDl+ftq6 =Unsa -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: removal of sdm source package
Hi, On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 04:29:13PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > >What is your plan and thought? Please let us know. > > My plan is to keep the package alive. I dislike its successor by same > author, ldm, due to its coding style - e.g. hardcoding ssh client > options inside a tiny C program. > > I am right now preparing a new packaging release fixing all bugs against > the package, including removing the watch file, acknowledging that > upstream project is dead. Good luck. I do not like seeing broken testing package hanging for long tome just to keep package name for you to upload a whole new program after long delay, though. So I am looking for new one to e uploaded soonish. Thanks in advance. > >(I did not see you have followed up any open bug reports on this > >package. Your last upload of this package is in 2006. This is some > >package which claims to help security and this does not look nice > >situation and attracted my attention.) > > Please note that none of the bugreports are security-related. If maintainer is active, I would like the maintainer to reply even with short message so everyone else knows what maintainer is doing. Silence as a maintainer cause worry. This is true especially when package is broken in its main functionality due to missing dependency. Regards, Osamu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: HPPA and Squeeze
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Luk Claes wrote: > John David Anglin wrote: >>> Grant Grundler schrieb: On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 08:49:26AM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: > Grant Grundler wrote: > >> I can understand the desire to trim architectures. However, it's clear >> the current decision was based on some misinformation, and an unclear >> rational. > > There is no desire to trim working architectures. > > It's very easy to tell there is nothing wrong when you don't have to > deal with unreliable build daemons, endless discussions but no visible > progress (except for java support) and complaints from DSA, package > maintainers and others. I'm sorry, but this thread is now over 2 weeks old and we yet have to see a *rationale* motivating the current decision. Not some claims about bugs (which we still haven't been pointed at, except for the ruby one, which we addressed already) affecting the buildds (and that only you experience). Speaking of which, I'm not aware of any problem affecting lafayette... We have given you tangible elements and have answered each and every questions that have been raised in this thread. The release team, on the other hand, failed to answer the single question we've been asking: what's the rationale for dropping parisc? I joined Debian many years ago because it seemed to me that it had proper ethics, in particular because decisions were taken transparently, and were properly - and openly - discussed before anything final was settled. I too have invested time and money into the project. I'm extremely disappointed with the handling of the issue at stake here. Again, I would like to see a comprehensive rationale for this decision, so that we can at least try to address the problems at hands and hope for re-inclusion after squeeze. BTW, can you clarify whether that would be an option? Cheers, T-Bone -- Thibaut VARENE http://www.parisc-linux.org/~varenet/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: HPPA and Squeeze
Luk, There is no desire to trim working architectures. It's very easy to tell there is nothing wrong when you don't have to deal with unreliable build daemons, endless discussions but no visible progress (except for java support) and complaints from DSA, package maintainers and others. If you looked at https://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph-big.png I think it is obvious hppa is not *that* broken. hppa is >95% built. That is not that bad. Of course, it can be better, but if you looked at this with a historical perspective the port is really in a pretty good shape. If you looked at the status of the toolchain posted to the gcc-testresults page: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-06/ you can see that hppa is one of the better architectures out there. Our results are on par with (if not better than) other supported architectures. IMHO hppa contributed a lot to getting Debian packages (and upstream) properly fixed to build properly across many other architectures and making it easier for new architectures to get incorporated into Debian. It's unfortunate that parisc is no longer a commercially popular platform, but why should not affect whether Debian supports it? It's obvious from the recent exchange that there are still people on the hppa team (and other Debian maintainers) that are willing to work on this architecture to make things better. Also by many metrics it is still very much a working architecture. It's really a shame that Debian's considering dropping support for HPPA in Squeeze. Please reconsider. randolph -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [SRM] Possible upload of adtool
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 08:21:46PM +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:11:12AM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: > > > 3. as a DM only, can you accept an upload directly or will I need > > > sponsorship? > > > > Just try, it should work AFAICS. > > Hmm, it failed because 1.3-1 doesn't have DMUA set. Would you like it on > mentors.d.n, which will need the upstream .tar.gz with it, or some other > way? ping? I'm aware it's very close to the release date (maybe even too close already). It would be nice to get this in, but I won't be offended if you say no. Cheers. -- Jonathan Wiltshire PGP/GPG: 0xDB800B52 / 4216 F01F DCA9 21AC F3D3 A903 CA6B EA3E DB80 0B52 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#531569: Fixing LaTeX in oldstable
Dear Luk, dear Release Managers, On Do, 11 Jun 2009, Frank Küster wrote: > I am right now uploading an again-installable tetex-bin to > oldstable-proposed-updates (I hope that's correct?), and texlive-bin > will follow soon. Both uploads have been built in etch pbuilder chroots, > and have been tested to fix the problem. > > The changes are small, essentially only one patch file is added, and > except for the changelog one file in debian/ is changed, namely the > quilt series file (for tetex-bin) or the dpatch 00list file. The > patch is attached. > > > Do we need to do anything else (besides fixing stable and sid, but that > isn't urgent since the bug won't show up soon)? sid will be fixed soon, but I have uploaded texlive-bin 2007.dfsg.2-4+lenny1 to proposed-stable-updates which includes the same fix as tetex and texlive-bin 2005 uploaded by Frank. Best wishes Norbert --- Dr. Norbert Preining Vienna University of Technology Debian Developer Debian TeX Group gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094 --- WINKLEY (n.) A lost object which turns up immediately you've gone and bought a replacement for it. --- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: proposed update of texlive-base for lenny
Hi Luk, sorry for the long forgotten upload ... On Mo, 04 Mai 2009, Luk Claes wrote: > Norbert Preining wrote: > > > I am proposing an update of texlive-base for lenny with the following > > changes: > > > > texlive-base (2007.dfsg.2-1~lenny1) stable-proposed-updates; > > urgency=medium > > > > * blacklist lamsarrow.sty (pb-diagram) as it is based on > > all-rights-reserved code. (Closes: #518800) (RC, new .orig.tar.gz, > > medium) > > * include fixed font metrics (tfm) files for lcircle10 and lcirclew10 > > fonts (Closes: #526903) (closes also Ubuntu bug 371621) > > Please upload. Done now. Best wishes Norbert --- Dr. Norbert Preining Vienna University of Technology Debian Developer Debian TeX Group gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094 --- FORDTell me Arthur... ARTHUR Yes? FORDThis boulder we're stuck under, how big would you say it was? Roughly? ARTHUR Oh, about the size of Coventry Cathedral. FORDDo you think we could move it? (Arthur doesn't reply) Just asking. --- Ford and Arthur in a tricky situation, Fit the Eighth. --- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
