Re: python-cryptography vs. stainless steel ports
On 3/14/24 06:53, Thorsten Glaser wrote: Dixi quod… Is there a chance your team could fork the old python-cryptography source package (3.4.8-2) and do something like: Apparently, pyopenssl needs to also be forked as it wraps the above and, between 21.0.0-1 and 22.1.0-1, it began requiring the rust version of python-cryptography ☹ And gstreamer1.0 seems to depend on rust as well, which blocks glade and as such some gnome apps: https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=gstreamer1.0&suite=sid Helge
Re: The (uncalled for) toolchain maintainers roll call for stretch
Hi Matthias, On 10.09.2016 00:48, Matthias Klose wrote: > While the Debian Release team has some citation about the quality of the > toolchain on their status page, it is not one of the release criteria > documented > by the release team. I'd like to document the status how I do understand it > for > some of the toolchains available in Debian. > Java/OpenJDK > > > For the stretch release openjdk-8 will be fine as the default java > implementation. For buster, gcj (to be removed in GCC 7) won't be available > anymore, and we'll end up with architectures without a java implementation. > At > the same time I'd like to consider to stop providing OpenJDK zero builds, > leaving powerpc and mips* without a java implementation as well (currently not > building for openjdk-9). armhf (not armel) and s390x have Hotspot ports > underway. Can you explain the reason why you consider stopping OpenJDK zero builds? I'm asking, because on hppa we currently use gcj and we don't have any OpenJDK port yet. My hope was to fix at some point in future the old existing OpenJDK zero port patches to get some newer JDK even if it's slower. With your intention to stop zero builds, we probably won't have any JDK at all... Thanks, Helge
Re: How to get d-i udeb packages for hppa-only back into unstable?
On 05/02/2014 09:10 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Helge Deller dixit: >> Can such a package be uploaded to debian master ftp if I go through >> the standard ITP process? > > No. Ok, I assumed that. >> If not, is there a way to make this happen on debian-ports somehow? > > Not in unstable, only in unreleased. We have the same problem > on m68k with e.g. bootloader packages. Yes, it's the bootloader packages on hppa too. > This needs to be addressed on d-i side; we need better support > for the dpo 'unreleased' suite there. Sounds not very simple or clean. How did you solved that on m68k then? The only simple way I see is then to set up an own repository (cloned from debian-ports), add the packages there and then instruct the installer to load the installation packages from there. This is at least how I got it to work sucessfully once. Alternatively one could play around with preseeding? Helge -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5363fa95.3040...@gmx.de
How to get d-i udeb packages for hppa-only back into unstable?
Hello list, maybe some can help me on this? To be able to create a debian-install-cd two udeb packages (partman-palo and palo-installer - both are related to the bootloader of the hppa architecture) need to be in "unstable", since the debian-installer will not look in unreleased and unstable at the same time and as such the installer will not find those udebs. Side-note: Both packages were in the standard debian repo years back, but were dropped when hppa was dropped as official debian arch and moved to debian-ports. My main problem: Since both packages are intended for hppa only, the .changes file lists both as: Architecture: source hppa Question: Can such a package be uploaded to debian master ftp if I go through the standard ITP process? If not, is there a way to make this happen on debian-ports somehow? Helge -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5363e8e8.6060...@gmx.de
Re: How to get a new palo source package into unstable?
Hi Adrian, On 01/12/2014 05:32 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 10:37:52PM +0100, Helge Deller wrote: >> as you might have noticed, we did huge progress on the HPPA (PA-RISC) port: >> http://buildd.debian-ports.org/stats/ > > Indeed. Congratulations on that! I'm glad to see the HPPA port coming > back to life. I'd love to test it myself, but the only PA-RISC machine > that I currently know of which is in my vicinity is located inside a > laboratory at my physics department and it's still running HP-UX. > Might be that it gets scrapped soon and replaced with something more > fancy so that I can get hold of it, who knows ;). Good thing is, that those machines got pretty cheap now. A Dualcore-C8000 workstation is available on ebay for < 100 EUR. >> In order to be able to boot parisc machines, the hppa port needs the "palo" >> debian package. >> "PALO" is the "PA-RISC boot loader" and a boot-loader-image generator, >> similar to >> "lilo" on i386 or "silo" on sparc. > > Or "aboot" on the Alpha machines. > >> I've continued to maintain and further develop palo. >> The new palo git repository is now at: >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/deller/palo.git >> and the source should compile and run on all plattforms. >> A simple checkout and dpkg-buildpackage should work. > > Thank you very much for doing this (and the hard work of bringing the > buildds back to life). Even though I currently don't own a PA-RISC > machine, I'm very glad that someone took care of it, such that owners > of these machines can still use it with a current Debian release. > >> Since I'm not a debian-developer, I don't know how to get this package into >> debian unstable again. >> What is the usual process to get a new/old package back into debian >> unstable? >> Maybe someone of you who has a debian developer rights is willing to upload >> the >> source package? > > I'm a Debian Developer with full upload permissions to the archive and > would absolutely love to help you get the boot loader (and any other > possibly necessary packages) back into Debian. Thanks! AFAIK the bootloader is the only package which is parisc specific. > The best is to have the package(s) uploaded to Debian Mentors [1] so I > can grab them from there and review them, send you suggestions on > improving them and finally upload them. I uploaded it, and CC'ed you on the request. http://mentors.debian.net/package/palo The info at top of the website is the latest package with most warnings fixed. It would be nice if you could help me (off-list) further on that. > Plus, it would be nice to have access to a PA-RISC machine myself so I > can perform a test build and inspect the finished package. Would that > be possible? Sure, I'll send you login details off-list. If other people here on the list want access, please let me know. > PS: I have noticed that the HPPA builds never include the build log, > for example radeontop [2]. Would it be possible to have these > enabled as well, so we can easily find out what went wrong when a > build failed? We had problems with sending mails from the buildds when I started the buildds mid december. Currently we have 5 buildds running: http://unstable.buildd.net/index-hppa.html Since around 2-3 weeks, all buildds except mx3210 do send build logs. I can reschedule a rebuild of radeontop for you, or you can just build it yourself on the machine for which I send you a login. Just let me know. Thanks! Helge -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52d30ad2.8030...@gmx.de
How to get a new palo source package into unstable?
Hello everyone, as you might have noticed, we did huge progress on the HPPA (PA-RISC) port: http://buildd.debian-ports.org/stats/ In order to be able to boot parisc machines, the hppa port needs the "palo" debian package. "PALO" is the "PA-RISC boot loader" and a boot-loader-image generator, similar to "lilo" on i386 or "silo" on sparc. palo has been part of the debian repository when parisc was still a fully-supported debian architecture, but was dropped when debian 6.0 was released. I've continued to maintain and further develop palo. The new palo git repository is now at: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/deller/palo.git and the source should compile and run on all plattforms. A simple checkout and dpkg-buildpackage should work. Since I'm not a debian-developer, I don't know how to get this package into debian unstable again. What is the usual process to get a new/old package back into debian unstable? Maybe someone of you who has a debian developer rights is willing to upload the source package? Any help would be great! Thanks, Helge Deller -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52d1b9b0.3010...@gmx.de
Re: debian-ports.org getting relatively unstable (hppa)
Hi Thorsten,
thanks for your help!
On 12/15/2013 02:59 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Helge Deller dixit:
>
>> We noticed, that when we manually binmnu-upload packages, which are
>> already in the *same version* on debian-ports, then debian-ports ACCEPT
>
> When you binNMU packages you add a +b1, +b2, … suffix to their
> versions. ITYM porter upload?
Yes, we did correct binNMU uploads for packages which already existed
in the same version in the repo. But there were lots of packages which
were outdated (the hppa build servers stopped in 2011!) and for those
we just rebuilt from current source and uploaded with the current
version.
>> those packages, but if we then try to apt-get-update those later on, this
>> leads
>> to a "size mismatch" error. I do have the feeling, that this is a
>> problem on debian-ports.
>
> I noticed this problem too, when I accidentally built a package
> I already had uploaded (and totally forgotten about): basically,
> the new *.deb files are accepted but the Packages file still
> contains the checksums etc. from the old *.deb file.
Ok, so it's a generic problem.
> Only way to fix this is to reupload the old *.changes file, or
> to do a binNMU proper. Or to build a newer version, ofc…
Yes, this is how we solved it too (binNMU) then.
>> So, I'm anxious, that if I start the buildd, it will happily build and
>> upload packages
>> which we already uploaded to debian-ports. If this happens we will get more
>> size-mismatch errors.
>
> That’s what you have wanna-build for. Basically, stop doing
> manual uploads without wanna-build locking at least six hours
> before turning on the first buildd. After that time, when you
> want/need to build a package manually, lock it in wanna-build:
> either “take” it for building, or mark as N-F-U.
Ok.
> See here for more info on that:
>
> • https://wiki.debian.org/M68k/Porting#binNMU_notes
> • http://lists.debian.org/debian-68k/2012/12/msg00124.html
> • http://lists.debian.org/debian-68k/2013/10/msg00021.html
Good links. Thanks!
> If you have packages that buildds should never build, for example
> like we had gcc-4.{6,8} for some time, mark them as Not-For-Us;
> otherwise, just take them for building.
>
>> deller@leda:~$ wb info hello . hppa
>
> This the same as “wanna-build -A hppa -d unstable --info hello”.
>
>> But on http://ftp.debian-ports.org/debian/pool-hppa/main/h/hello/ you can
>> see, that the hello-package is already uploaded at version 2.8-4
>
> Indeed. This is bad, new, another / a different problem, and we
> didn’t have this on m68k. (Note that uploads usually take a bit
> until they show up on w-b, hence the need for locking.)
It seems the wb-database was turned off because we didn't had buildd
servers for quite some time. Aurelien will turn it back on again.
>> So, if my buildd now uploads the newly created hello package, I'm sure
>> we will run again into the size-mismatch problem.
>
> Yes, you will definitely run into that problem when you upload
> hello_2.8-4_hppa again.
>
>> My question here on the list would be, if you (other arch-porters) do have
>> an idea
>> on how I should proceed.
>
> Either…
>
>> Best solution would probably be, if the wanna-build database rescans what's
>> in
>> the archive already. Is this possible?
>
> … that (no idea if it’s possible), or make two lists: a list of what
> is currently in the archive for hppa, and a list of packages in the
> Needs-Build or BD-Uninstallable¹ state. Then, for every package in
> the same versions (except +b* sufficēs) in *both* lists, schedule a
> binNMU (e.g. to get hello_2.8-4+b1_hppa). Do note whether it already
> got a binNMU suffix: e.g. aclock.app_0.2.3-3+b4 would need to be
> scheduled for --binNMU=5 to be larger.
>
> You might be able to cheat, e.g. take hello for building, then tell
> it that you uploaded it. But I don’t know why w-b doesn’t register
> that it’s there in the first place, so a rescan, if possible, should
> happen first.
Before Aurelien's answer I was thinking if this could work on leda too:
touch -d2013-01-01 ~/ref
cd /srv/mini-dak/ftp/debian/pool-hppa/main
find . -newer ~/ref | grep .changes$
Basically it would just try to find all packages (.changes) which
we uploaded after january 2012. Then in the next step maybe use the
"--pretend-avail" option of wb to tell it that this package is already
up-to-date. Not sure if this would work though...
But I will now first wait until the wb-database will gets activated
again and check then.
> Hm, only 12 packages here:
> tg@leda:~$ wanna-build -A hppa -d unstable --list=needs-build | less
> But this has more (9043):
&
Re: debian-ports.org getting relatively unstable (hppa)
Hello Aurelien, On 12/15/2013 09:03 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 11:54:43AM +0100, Helge Deller wrote: >> On 12/15/2013 06:32 AM, Dave Land wrote: >>> Not sure what's up at debian-ports.org, but I've been trying to >>> debootstrap 2 different HPPA machines for the last couple days and >>> have been getting a variety of errors (size mismatches, files not >>> found when they were there 20 minutes before, etc. etc.) Somebody may >>> want to look into this before it gets out of hand. Thanks! :) >> >> I maybe should add some more background here, and maybe someone >> here on the list might have an idea on how to proceed. >> >> Background is, that Dave and myself have binmnu-uploaded the necessary >> packages for hppa so that debootstrap worked. Then we proceeded with the >> necessary >> packages for sbuild and schroot, so that I now have a buildd installed >> which should be able to start building packages. I haven't turned it >> on yet though for the reasons which I explain in a few seconds... >> >> In the meantime we have of course uploaded a few more packages which >> now currently break debootstrap. This is fixable manually, but I instead >> of uploading packages manually now, I would prefer to get the buildd >> going instead... So, Dave Land, please wait a little bit... >> >> Now to the reasons why I didn't turned on the buildd yet: >> We noticed, that when we manually binmnu-upload packages, which are >> already in the *same version* on debian-ports, then debian-ports ACCEPT >> those packages, but if we then try to apt-get-update those later on, this >> leads >> to a "size mismatch" error. I do have the feeling, that this is a >> problem on debian-ports. I noticed for example that reprepro usually >> doesn't accept packages of the same version which doesn't seem to be >> the case on debian-ports. > > This is indeed the case, apt-fptarchive keep the checksums corresponding > to first package. That said it hasn't really caused any problem so far. > >> So, I'm anxious, that if I start the buildd, it will happily build and >> upload packages >> which we already uploaded to debian-ports. If this happens we will get more >> size-mismatch errors. > > Well if you leave the build daemons handling the uploads, they will not > build and upload the same package again, and the problem won't happen. Ok, so we should enable the buildd as soon as possble. >> A trivial example: >> On machine buildd.debian-ports.org I run: >> deller@leda:~$ wb info hello . hppa >> * hello/hppa >> | hello: >> | Package : hello >> | Version : 2.8-4 >> | State : Needs-Build >> | Section : devel >> | Priority: source >> | Previous-State : >> | State-Change: 2013-02-18 00:03:36.782007 >> | CalculatedPri : 52 >> | component : main >> | Distribution: sid >> | Notes : out-of-date >> | State-Days : 300 >> | State-Time : 25958430 >> >> So, the package "hello" would need a rebuild according to the wanna-build >> database, >> and that would wb probably tell my buildd who then would start >> building/uploading it. >> But on http://ftp.debian-ports.org/debian/pool-hppa/main/h/hello/ you can >> see, that the hello-package is already uploaded at version 2.8-4 >> So, if my buildd now uploads the newly created hello package, I'm sure >> we will run again into the size-mismatch problem. > > The wanna-build database is not up to date on hppa. I have disabled it > to save some very precious cpu cycles given there are no buildds on hppa > yet. Can you the please start it now again? This would help me to see what's missing. >> Now, Aurelien mentioned last week to me, that this size-mismatch error >> might be because of the "apt-ftparchive cache might have been corrupted for >> hppa". >> I'm not 100% sure about that. > > Ok I wasn't aware the same package have been uploaded multiple time, so > the corruption comes clearly from there. > >> My question here on the list would be, if you (other arch-porters) do have >> an idea >> on how I should proceed. > > I would say stop doing manual upload and start the build daemons. Will do. That was even the plan - just upload enough that debootstrap/sbuild/schroot is installable which it is now. >> Best solution
Re: debian-ports.org getting relatively unstable (hppa)
On 12/15/2013 06:32 AM, Dave Land wrote: > Not sure what's up at debian-ports.org, but I've been trying to > debootstrap 2 different HPPA machines for the last couple days and > have been getting a variety of errors (size mismatches, files not > found when they were there 20 minutes before, etc. etc.) Somebody may > want to look into this before it gets out of hand. Thanks! :) I maybe should add some more background here, and maybe someone here on the list might have an idea on how to proceed. Background is, that Dave and myself have binmnu-uploaded the necessary packages for hppa so that debootstrap worked. Then we proceeded with the necessary packages for sbuild and schroot, so that I now have a buildd installed which should be able to start building packages. I haven't turned it on yet though for the reasons which I explain in a few seconds... In the meantime we have of course uploaded a few more packages which now currently break debootstrap. This is fixable manually, but I instead of uploading packages manually now, I would prefer to get the buildd going instead... So, Dave Land, please wait a little bit... Now to the reasons why I didn't turned on the buildd yet: We noticed, that when we manually binmnu-upload packages, which are already in the *same version* on debian-ports, then debian-ports ACCEPT those packages, but if we then try to apt-get-update those later on, this leads to a "size mismatch" error. I do have the feeling, that this is a problem on debian-ports. I noticed for example that reprepro usually doesn't accept packages of the same version which doesn't seem to be the case on debian-ports. So, I'm anxious, that if I start the buildd, it will happily build and upload packages which we already uploaded to debian-ports. If this happens we will get more size-mismatch errors. A trivial example: On machine buildd.debian-ports.org I run: deller@leda:~$ wb info hello . hppa * hello/hppa | hello: | Package : hello | Version : 2.8-4 | State : Needs-Build | Section : devel | Priority: source | Previous-State : | State-Change: 2013-02-18 00:03:36.782007 | CalculatedPri : 52 | component : main | Distribution: sid | Notes : out-of-date | State-Days : 300 | State-Time : 25958430 So, the package "hello" would need a rebuild according to the wanna-build database, and that would wb probably tell my buildd who then would start building/uploading it. But on http://ftp.debian-ports.org/debian/pool-hppa/main/h/hello/ you can see, that the hello-package is already uploaded at version 2.8-4 So, if my buildd now uploads the newly created hello package, I'm sure we will run again into the size-mismatch problem. Now, Aurelien mentioned last week to me, that this size-mismatch error might be because of the "apt-ftparchive cache might have been corrupted for hppa". I'm not 100% sure about that. My question here on the list would be, if you (other arch-porters) do have an idea on how I should proceed. Best solution would probably be, if the wanna-build database rescans what's in the archive already. Is this possible? Or, should I just start the buildd and see what's happening? If we then get the size-mismatch errors there is lot of manual work to fix it (unless resetting the apt-ftparchive on debian-ports would solve this). Any other ideas? Helge -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52ad8a73.6040...@gmx.de
Re: Bug#730258: please add arch-specific BTS tags
On 11/24/2013 12:21 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 11/23/2013 11:51 PM, Helge Deller wrote: >> Please add "hppa" > > Assuming that you are one of the hppa guys, how is the port doing? Any > chance that the buildds will be up and running again anytime soon? Yes, think so. I'm working on that just right now... Helge -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/529138b5.5050...@gmx.de
Re: Bug#730258: please add arch-specific BTS tags
On 11/23/2013 10:53 PM, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Sat, 23 Nov 2013, Ivo De Decker wrote: >> During a discussion about architecture qualification, the release team >> concluded that it would be interesting to have a better way to track >> architecture-specific bugs. It would be nice to have BTS tags for each >> architecture that is currently in the archive. It might also make >> sense to have tags for the architectures on debian-ports, to be able >> to filter issues about these easily. > > This sounds reasonable; are only tags required, or do we need more > infrastructure than that? > > These are the list of ports that I see: > > amd64 > armel > armhf > hurd-i386 > i386 > ia64 > kfreebsd-amd64 > kfreebsd-i386 > mips > mipsel > powerpc > s390x > sparc > avr32 > sh > > What else am I missing? Please add "hppa" Helge -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5291317e.3020...@gmx.de
Re: Roll call for porters of architectures in sid and testing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello, I am not currently a porter but I would like to be one for the architecture parisc/hppa. I currently have lots of parisc hardware (5 workstations and 4 servers), all currently running debian unstable from our own debian repository at www.parisc-linux.org. My involvement for debian-parisc so far: - - I was one of the initiators of parisc-linux port back in 1999. - - I have continuous worked on the ports since then. - - I'm currently one of the two official linux kernel maintainers for the parisc port at kernel.org. - - I've fixed quite some debian bugs reported for parisc in the past, including locking functions in gcc, KDE fixes, udev fixes and many more. - - I do have a strong linux developer background (C/C++, Assembler) and was formerly a developer at a major linux distributor. - - I'm maintaining the parisc-linux website and wikis. I am not a DD/DM but would like to become one. At last, I would be happy if parisc could become again a supported platform in the debian-ports repositories for the lifetime of Jessie. parisc was dropped with debian squeeze, because there were quite some stability issues with the Linux kernel at that time. Currently, upstream kernel 3.10 (stable) and kernel 3.11 do work reliable on all major machines. -- Helge Deller On 09/01/2013 09:33 AM, Niels Thykier wrote: > Hi, > > As we announced in [LAST-BITS], we would like to get a better idea of > that status of the ports, to make an informed decision about which > port can be released with jessie. One of the steps is to get an > overview of which of the porters are (still) active for each > port. Once the results from the role-call are in, we will request > other information about the status of the ports. In the meantime, feel > free to update and collect info about the ports in the Debian wiki[WIKI]. > > If you are (or intend to become) an active porter for the lifetime of > jessie, then please send a signed email explaining your involvement in > the port to the Release Team before > 1st of October 2013. Please explain the level of your involvement in > the port. > > Feel free to use the following template as your reply: > > """ > Hi, > > I am an active porter for the following architectures and I intend > to continue this for the lifetime of the jessie release: > > For , I > - test (most|all) packages on this architecture > - fix toolchain issues > - triage arch-specific bugs > - fix arch-related bugs > - maintain buildds > - ... > > > > > """ > > Niels, on behalf of the release team > > [LAST-BITS] > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2013/08/msg6.html > > [WIKI] https://wiki.debian.org/ArchiveQualification/Jessie > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSKPXJAAoJEIfJwVG1Hjhk1BsH/3nhr6HjGwpGnc6NnQxV3KA2 95LNye6Fi7aOh5NWGrjn8c3fmyJcoHdQFAMOIIulGZW6gLAeu1cX9Y16OAzMKP/H LTCvq0Q8yzl/U75+NKgz9rdozsXds43rmuyBJIZdypGXKjWEIkRz/ISzOL4+hdqh W+HoYWG/fqCsdhJMiUIIUQ7BW6kadJmoi3L5dZBBwLD9bHLY6lCIT4JEdDXKZrQ9 NPIYhEDfCIJl4yS982Q76SwqEkCYG84f0Egez66ADuazCjqGWkrI6EBzOeDvgV26 wdfekcU/Wx3LcFDBnd8clMG/MdmxxQu7c915Uv23DejD0QWVUlimFSTfWI8v59k= =htC/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sparc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5228f5c9.3050...@gmx.de
