Bug#470091: ltp package in Debian
Hello, On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 14:41:15 +0200, Riku Voipio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 12:41:57AM +0200, Jiří Paleček wrote: just before you read the rest, I've uploaded a new version of ltp to mentors, URL as usual. http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/ltp It is slightly less tested than the previous version, especially the new tests (containers, connectors). If anybody feels s/he knows what these are for and has a kernel that supports them, feel free to test. The diff.gz delta compared to upstream is getting quite big, so reviewing is getting a bit burdensom as well.. However, before I got the I got bombed out with a strange build error (using pdebuild) log attached. I don't see where the a.out file suddenly appears from.. I have uploaded a new version with this problem fixed (and the .diff.gz is slightly smaller). Same URL. Regards Jiri Palecek -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#470091: ltp package in Debian
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 14:41:15 +0200, Riku Voipio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 12:41:57AM +0200, Jiří Paleček wrote: just before you read the rest, I've uploaded a new version of ltp to mentors, URL as usual. http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/ltp It is slightly less tested than the previous version, especially the new tests (containers, connectors). If anybody feels s/he knows what these are for and has a kernel that supports them, feel free to test. The diff.gz delta compared to upstream is getting quite big, so reviewing is getting a bit burdensom as well.. You can look into the repository, it should be easier (sorry I screwed up the last push that the heads were not updated, so the current version was only available under a tag). However, before I got the I got bombed out with a strange build error (using pdebuild) log attached. I don't see where the a.out file suddenly appears from.. Seems to be a bug in the makefile. As to where it comes from?, see http://repo.or.cz/w/ltp-debian.git?a=blob;f=testcases/kernel/syscalls/eventfd/Makefile;h=da9faa0c20a875f2ad7881b86bbbe29058d131dc;hb=a641942ed5713f3041481096f2ceff5c264e9f19 about line 30. Yes, I knew that. One thing that surprised me, was that different architectures don't seem to agree on #defines in kernel headers (eg. look at the strings in timerfd01 test). Is it possible that different architectures' buildds have different kernel versions? All archs in debian should use same kernel version (atleast as regarding for kernel headers). However, some architectures implement various kernel features slower than others. Strange, because the timerfd01 test compilation should only depend on kernel #defines - yet the results are little haphazard (IIRC, amd64 - no, ia64 - yes, s390 - yes, ppc - no?) Also, some architectures (like kfreebsd-*) fail due to lack of system libraries (i.e. only libcap now, but will concern libaio too). What could I do against it? Should I? Does it really make any sense to run LTP (where L is for Linux) on other OS's? Well, not all tests are linux specific. Many tests for posix syscalls should be portable, ditto commands test which really test your favourite cron/syslog/mail/ftp etc. daemon and your ability to set it up correctly. The tests are not even made for linux in many cases, they are just ported. For example, I have some plans with packaging ballista, I made it compile run on my box, but the descriptions of the syscalls for ballista are from Digital UNIX (IIRC) and some don't compile on Linux. The question is, should I ditch the support for those other arches/OSes because of new linux specific tests, even though the old LTP packages compiled on them and the new would probably compile too if there weren't those dependencies? Brtw, do you intend to apply for Debian Developer ( https://nm.debian.org ) or Debian Maintainer ( http://wiki.debian.org/Maintainers ) ? For both cases you need to get your key signed by a Debian Developer. That's a tough question, but isn't it a little too early after a single upload? That was more a question of what your ambitions are, ie how involved do you plan to get with debian. No plans so far, sorry. Regards Jiri Palecek -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#470091: ltp package in Debian
Hello, just before you read the rest, I've uploaded a new version of ltp to mentors, URL as usual. http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/ltp It is slightly less tested than the previous version, especially the new tests (containers, connectors). If anybody feels s/he knows what these are for and has a kernel that supports them, feel free to test. On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:40:40 +0200, Riku Voipio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 02:29:40AM +0200, Jiří Paleček wrote: Ok, uploading to experimental. Thank you. I hope it builds, it's time for prayers :-) http://packages.qa.debian.org/l/ltp.html In the right side, you see the buildd: exp link, which will inform you of the experimental builds once the builds start. Yes, I knew that. One thing that surprised me, was that different architectures don't seem to agree on #defines in kernel headers (eg. look at the strings in timerfd01 test). Is it possible that different architectures' buildds have different kernel versions? Also, some architectures (like kfreebsd-*) fail due to lack of system libraries (i.e. only libcap now, but will concern libaio too). What could I do against it? Should I? Brtw, do you intend to apply for Debian Developer ( https://nm.debian.org ) or Debian Maintainer ( http://wiki.debian.org/Maintainers ) ? For both cases you need to get your key signed by a Debian Developer. That's a tough question, but isn't it a little too early after a single upload? Regards Jiri Palecek -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#470091: ltp package in Debian
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 02:29:40AM +0200, Jiří Paleček wrote: Ok, uploading to experimental. Thank you. I hope it builds, it's time for prayers :-) http://packages.qa.debian.org/l/ltp.html In the right side, you see the buildd: exp link, which will inform you of the experimental builds once the builds start. One more thing I noticed, your changelog omit the last two uploads: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/l/ltp/current/changelog Thanks for noticing that. IIUC, that means the bugs will be automatically reopened in the BTS, right? The archive is not smart enough to do that :) besides, your upload was to experimental. I ve checked out the README.Debian and will push it into the repository. The other things are probably dealt with. The c++ thing is solved by not building the files in questions (BTW it's also fixed upstream), bashisms should be OK, and the OPEN_MAX thing is fixed upstream. Ok, thanks for checking. Brtw, do you intend to apply for Debian Developer ( https://nm.debian.org ) or Debian Maintainer ( http://wiki.debian.org/Maintainers ) ? For both cases you need to get your key signed by a Debian Developer. -- rm -rf only sounds scary if you don't have backups -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#470091: ltp package in Debian
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 10:32:43PM +0200, Jiří Paleček wrote: On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 19:37:13 +0200, Riku Voipio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Generally good work, its miles ahead of what the _current_ ltp packages in debian are. Once you've fixed atleast the changelog, I'm ready to upload it. Ok, I uploaded a new version to mentors.debian.net (same URL). Ok, uploading to experimental. One more thing I noticed, your changelog omit the last two uploads: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/l/ltp/current/changelog You should check that all changes done, atleast the README.Debian is still probably relevant (unless you want to start supporting ltp's security :) There's a lintian warning about the watch file I added (unmangled debian version), but I think it is a false positive, because I have opts=dversionmangle=s/\+.*$// \ http://sf.net/ltp/ltp-full-([0-9]+)\.tgz debian git-import-orig in the watch file, which should mangle the debian version correctly. you might want to file a bug against lintian if you believe it's a error in lintian reporting. -- rm -rf only sounds scary if you don't have backups signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#470091: ltp package in Debian
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 23:17:40 +0200, Riku Voipio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 10:32:43PM +0200, Jiří Paleček wrote: On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 19:37:13 +0200, Riku Voipio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Generally good work, its miles ahead of what the _current_ ltp packages in debian are. Once you've fixed atleast the changelog, I'm ready to upload it. Ok, I uploaded a new version to mentors.debian.net (same URL). Ok, uploading to experimental. Thank you. I hope it builds, it's time for prayers :-) One more thing I noticed, your changelog omit the last two uploads: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/l/ltp/current/changelog Thanks for noticing that. IIUC, that means the bugs will be automatically reopened in the BTS, right? You should check that all changes done, atleast the README.Debian is still probably relevant (unless you want to start supporting ltp's security :) No, thanks. I cannot imagine supporting the security of something which, by design, contains code that can bring the whole machine down. Although I did some changes for security, like removing some files that are suid root in upstream, this is just a tip of the iceberg. Amongst other things I know of, ltp can leak resources (esp. message queues). I ve checked out the README.Debian and will push it into the repository. The other things are probably dealt with. The c++ thing is solved by not building the files in questions (BTW it's also fixed upstream), bashisms should be OK, and the OPEN_MAX thing is fixed upstream. Regards Jiri Palecek -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#470091: ltp package in Debian
Hello, On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 19:37:13 +0200, Riku Voipio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 05:47:21PM +0200, Jiří Paleček wrote: if you're still interrested, I've uploaded my package to http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/ltp Looks fine to me. Some minor issues: 1) the changelog is missing closes: 470091 text to close this bug (ltp being orphaned). Simillary you'll need to close the new upstream version available bug in changelog. 2) add Vcs-Git: git://repo.or.cz/ltp-debian.git and Vcs-Browser: http://repo.or.cz/w/ltp-debian.git tags to debian/control 3) likewise, a Homepage: http://ltp.sourceforge.net/ Ok, should I increment the version number while doing this? Also, I got this email. It means I'll have to get my key signed, am I right? Regards Jiri Palecek ltp_20080831+dfsg-1.dsc.mbs Description: Binary data
Bug#470091: ltp package in Debian
On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 02:24:28PM +0200, Jiří Paleček wrote: Hello, On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 19:37:13 +0200, Riku Voipio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 05:47:21PM +0200, Jiří Paleček wrote: if you're still interrested, I've uploaded my package to http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/ltp Looks fine to me. Some minor issues: 1) the changelog is missing closes: 470091 text to close this bug (ltp being orphaned). Simillary you'll need to close the new upstream version available bug in changelog. 2) add Vcs-Git: git://repo.or.cz/ltp-debian.git and Vcs-Browser: http://repo.or.cz/w/ltp-debian.git tags to debian/control 3) likewise, a Homepage: http://ltp.sourceforge.net/ Ok, should I increment the version number while doing this? It shouldn't be strictly neccesary, but it might be required by mentors.debian.net. Also, I got this email. It means I'll have to get my key signed, am I right? You might want to ask Anibal ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) abouth that message. perhaps just sending your pgp key to keyservers is enough. -- rm -rf only sounds scary if you don't have backups -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#470091: ltp package in Debian
On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 17:47 +0200, Jiří Paleček wrote: if you're still interrested, I've uploaded my package to http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/ltp Thanks, I'll merge this for Ubuntu when the repositories for Jaunty open in a couple of months. The LTP version for Intrepid is locked. BTW, I'll formally withdraw my suggestion of maintaining this package for LTP, since we seem to be converging on Jiří's package. Thanks, :-Dustin signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#470091: ltp package in Debian
Hello, On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 20:33:00 +0200, Dustin Kirkland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 11:54 +0300, Riku Voipio wrote: On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 12:20:42AM +0200, Jiří Paleček wrote: FYI: I have created a git repository with my packaging, see http://repo.or.cz/w/ltp-debian.git Justin, do you have time to check this? I'm a bit overcommited for the coming weeks.. I am on vacation at the moment, though I would be happy to review as soon as I'm back in the land of connectivity. If Jiří's packaging is acceptable, as I said before, I'm happy to withdraw my proposed, updated package. if you're still interrested, I've uploaded my package to http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/ltp Regards Jiri Palecek -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#470091: ltp package in Debian
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 05:47:21PM +0200, Jiří Paleček wrote: if you're still interrested, I've uploaded my package to http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/ltp Looks fine to me. Some minor issues: 1) the changelog is missing closes: 470091 text to close this bug (ltp being orphaned). Simillary you'll need to close the new upstream version available bug in changelog. 2) add Vcs-Git: git://repo.or.cz/ltp-debian.git and Vcs-Browser: http://repo.or.cz/w/ltp-debian.git tags to debian/control 3) likewise, a Homepage: http://ltp.sourceforge.net/ 4) you have commented out most of debian/rules and replaced it all with cdbs. Since you are already using git, you could just _remove_ the commented lines - they can still be found from git history. This would make the debian/rules file shipped in the package cleaner. Generally good work, its miles ahead of what the _current_ ltp packages in debian are. Once you've fixed atleast the changelog, I'm ready to upload it. -- rm -rf only sounds scary if you don't have backups -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#470091: ltp package in Debian
On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 11:54 +0300, Riku Voipio wrote: On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 12:20:42AM +0200, Jiří Paleček wrote: FYI: I have created a git repository with my packaging, see http://repo.or.cz/w/ltp-debian.git Justin, do you have time to check this? I'm a bit overcommited for the coming weeks.. I am on vacation at the moment, though I would be happy to review as soon as I'm back in the land of connectivity. If Jiří's packaging is acceptable, as I said before, I'm happy to withdraw my proposed, updated package. :-Dustin signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#470091: ltp package in Debian
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 12:20:42AM +0200, Jiří Paleček wrote: FYI: I have created a git repository with my packaging, see http://repo.or.cz/w/ltp-debian.git Justin, do you have time to check this? I'm a bit overcommited for the coming weeks.. The changelog and copyright files are, however, still TBD. BTW, would grep -R Copyright * make a good base of a copyright file? Try licensecheck (included in devscripts) Regards Jiri Palecek -- rm -rf only sounds scary if you don't have backups -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#470091: ltp package in Debian
Hi all, FYI: I have created a git repository with my packaging, see http://repo.or.cz/w/ltp-debian.git The changelog and copyright files are, however, still TBD. BTW, would grep -R Copyright * make a good base of a copyright file? Regards Jiri Palecek -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#470091: ltp package in Debian
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 09:24:18AM -0500, Dustin Kirkland wrote: Fixing the functionality provided by the LTP is a noble goal, and I absolutely support this. However, that should be done upstream with the LTP community. Agreed. I'm offering to update the nearly-two-year-old Debian LTP package to something more recent, and continue maintaining and improving the package. I would like to focus the current discussion on pertinent packaging issues that need to be solved for this to happen. With the control file changes I think the ltp should be acceptable, or atleast better than it is _now_. Lets not have perfect as the enemy of better than now :) Can we agree on a action plan? I'm still ready to sponsor. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#470091: ltp package in Debian
Hello, On Fri, 30 May 2008 16:24:18 +0200, Dustin Kirkland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 05:04 +0200, Jiří Paleček wrote: Well, when I first tried to use ltp, there were the other bugs that made ltp totally nonfunctional, and these were already filed. I agree with this--LTP has problems. There are still bashisms present in shell scripts. It does not always follow the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard [1]. Some of its tests have a bias toward other Linux distributions where much of the early development was performed. Fixing the functionality provided by the LTP is a noble goal, and I absolutely support this. However, that should be done upstream with the LTP community. Well, some yes, some not. Bashisms, certainly. Segfaults in echo6, too. But I'm not sure about the FHS issues - if you read the READMEs, you can see ltp is supposed to run from its source code directory which isn't against the FHS, but I guess it's up to the packager to create a FHS-installable package, then. So is the bias towards other distributions: for example the syslog tests, at the first sight, support Debian. However, this support is at the first sight only and could have never really worked, the way it's written. Or it worked and was broken afterwards, which is even worse. So, do you think it's not better to maintain an own patch, which is quite simple, if that means to streamline the code and is easier, because I don't have to think about not breaking eg. Fedora, as opposed to pushing a more complex patch (because it has to support more variants) upstream and hoping nobody else changes that in a way that breaks Debian and doesn't notice that? I'm offering to update the nearly-two-year-old Debian LTP package to something more recent, and continue maintaining and improving the package. I would like to focus the current discussion on pertinent packaging issues that need to be solved for this to happen. I think I agree here. The packaging issues (and I think that includes missing files and bad paths) should be solved first. For example, I tried updating the copyright file and found some dfsg-nonfree files. But I also found this (testcases/kernel/syscalls/nftw/Makefile and 3 other files): # # $Copyright: $ # Copyright (c) 1984-1999 # Sequent Computer Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. # # This software is furnished under a license and may be used # only in accordance with the terms of that license and with the # inclusion of the above copyright notice. This software may not # be provided or otherwise made available to, or used by, any # other person. No title to or ownership of the software is # hereby transferred. I really don't know what to think about it. Also, the package needs thorough testing. Then, as what you call a noble goal, it would be really good to package a bigger fraction of the source package (open_posix_testsuite, realtime tests, DOTS, etc.) So I started my own packaging and found out there were many other bugs. Interesting. I'm willing to drop the package I've prepared, withdraw the proposal I've submitted for maintenance, and sync the Ubuntu LTP packages to your packaging, if you're willing to assume ownership of Debian LTP and update the Debian package accordingly. I was hoping for a more enthusiastic answer... But, I have changed my packaging from quilt patches to git repository. If you want, I'll make that public. Regards Jiri Palecek -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#470091: ltp package in Debian
On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 05:04 +0200, Jiří Paleček wrote: The first one is, the others aren't. Okay, I can fix that in the control file. Well, when I first tried to use ltp, there were the other bugs that made ltp totally nonfunctional, and these were already filed. I agree with this--LTP has problems. There are still bashisms present in shell scripts. It does not always follow the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard [1]. Some of its tests have a bias toward other Linux distributions where much of the early development was performed. Fixing the functionality provided by the LTP is a noble goal, and I absolutely support this. However, that should be done upstream with the LTP community. I'm offering to update the nearly-two-year-old Debian LTP package to something more recent, and continue maintaining and improving the package. I would like to focus the current discussion on pertinent packaging issues that need to be solved for this to happen. So I started my own packaging and found out there were many other bugs. Interesting. I'm willing to drop the package I've prepared, withdraw the proposal I've submitted for maintenance, and sync the Ubuntu LTP packages to your packaging, if you're willing to assume ownership of Debian LTP and update the Debian package accordingly. I didn't file these because there wasn't any response on the old bugs, and also because I used a newer version of upstream. The package is marked as 'orphaned' [2]. I am trying to solve that problem. Subsequently, I fixed at least some of these bugs, which meant creating 28 patches changing ~140 files (and more in the debian directory that I don't manage by patches). And given that amount of work, I think the normal Debian workflow (file a bug - wait a month for an updated version (1 month is actually pretty good response time for a serious severity bug) - find out it still has other bugs) is simply not gonna work. I have some ~50 bugs open, and these are mostly bugs I cannot fix. So I'm not gonna litter my bug page with another ~10 for ltp that are actually easier for me to fix than file bugreport about, sorry. Are any of these patches upstream? If any of them have made it into LTP upstream since 18 Sep 2006, I would think that you should benefit from an updated LTP package in Debian. Work your fixes into upstream. Get an active Debian maintainer. I'd think you should see this process improve. And if not, you have your own packages right? :-Dustin [1] http://www.pathname.com/fhs/ [2] http://packages.qa.debian.org/l/ltp.html signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#470091: ltp package in Debian
On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 20:36 +0200, Riku Voipio wrote: Please do. If you need sponsoring, please mail me when ready. and On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 15:23 -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote: This package has been orphaned. If you still want to collaborate, please prepare an upload for Debian and take over the package's maintenance. I have prepared Debian packages, which require sponsoring. I think you should be able to find everything you need here: http://people.ubuntu.com/~kirkland/ltp.debian/ I also uploaded it to mentors: http://mentors.debian.net/cgi-bin/maintainer-packages?action=details;package=ltp Please let me know what are the next steps. Thanks, -- :-Dustin Dustin Kirkland Ubuntu Server Developer Canonical, LTD [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/83A61194 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#470091: ltp package in Debian
Hi Dustin, On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 05:02:38PM -0500, Dustin Kirkland wrote: Please let me know what are the next steps. /me puts on his DD hat... Various things I'd want to see fixed before I would sponsor the upload: - fix lintian warning[1] in rules (and add a compat file). - update to standards version 3.7.3[2] in control file along with any needed packaging changes. - update source to current upstream version, as seen by watch file[3] - check (and fix?) bug #405655 (which has a patch). - add a Closes for bug #470091, as you're taking over maintainership.[4] - is the old-patches directory needed any more? Everything else looks good. :) [1] http://mentors.debian.net/cgi-bin/sponsor-pkglist?action=details;package=ltp [2] /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist.txt.gz [3] http://dehs.alioth.debian.org/maintainer.php?name=ltp [4] http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/ Removing entries O -- Kees Cook -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#470091: ltp package in Debian
On Fri, 30 May 2008 01:00:55 +0200, Kees Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Dustin, On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 05:02:38PM -0500, Dustin Kirkland wrote: Please let me know what are the next steps. /me puts on his DD hat... Various things I'd want to see fixed before I would sponsor the upload: - fix lintian warning[1] in rules (and add a compat file). - update to standards version 3.7.3[2] in control file along with any needed packaging changes. - update source to current upstream version, as seen by watch file[3] - check (and fix?) bug #405655 (which has a patch). - add a Closes for bug #470091, as you're taking over maintainership.[4] - is the old-patches directory needed any more? Everything else looks good. :) I don't know... - -commands- and -kernel- are not co-installable - many tests can't be ran from ltpmenu (eg. math tests)/don't have necessary files packaged (eg. nfs)/simply don't work (eg. *chown) [1] - some tests write to /usr These are the reasons I had to create my own packages to test some kernel changes. I was kinda hoping the situation is going to ameliorate, but it doesn't seem so. I think ltp would make a perfect candidate for a team-maintaned package. But that would mean someone (DD?) had to create some (git?) repository, wiki... [1] eg. in this context mean ... and many others Regards Jiri Palecek -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#470091: ltp package in Debian
On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 02:05 +0200, Jiří Paleček wrote: - -commands- and -kernel- are not co-installable - many tests can't be ran from ltpmenu (eg. math tests)/don't have necessary files packaged (eg. nfs)/simply don't work (eg. *chown) [1] - some tests write to /usr Are these regressions? In other words, have I introduced these as new problems by updating Debian's ltp package from the 20060918 release to the 20080229? If so, I'll work to rectify those in my next iteration before requesting sponsorship. Otherwise, if these problems were present in the 20060918 package as well, why do you file a bug against the ltp package we we'll fix them in subsequent updates? :-Dustin signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#470091: ltp package in Debian
On Fri, 30 May 2008 04:16:47 +0200, Dustin Kirkland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 02:05 +0200, Jiří Paleček wrote: - -commands- and -kernel- are not co-installable - many tests can't be ran from ltpmenu (eg. math tests)/don't have necessary files packaged (eg. nfs)/simply don't work (eg. *chown) [1] - some tests write to /usr Are these regressions? The first one is, the others aren't. Otherwise, if these problems were present in the 20060918 package as well, why don't you file a bug against the ltp package so we'll fix them in subsequent updates? (typos corrected) Well, when I first tried to use ltp, there were the other bugs that made ltp totally nonfunctional, and these were already filed. So I started my own packaging and found out there were many other bugs. I didn't file these because there wasn't any response on the old bugs, and also because I used a newer version of upstream. Subsequently, I fixed at least some of these bugs, which meant creating 28 patches changing ~140 files (and more in the debian directory that I don't manage by patches). And given that amount of work, I think the normal Debian workflow (file a bug - wait a month for an updated version (1 month is actually pretty good response time for a serious severity bug) - find out it still has other bugs) is simply not gonna work. I have some ~50 bugs open, and these are mostly bugs I cannot fix. So I'm not gonna litter my bug page with another ~10 for ltp that are actually easier for me to fix than file bugreport about, sorry. Regards Jiri Palecek -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#470091: ltp package in Debian
Hi, On Wednesday 26 March 2008, Dustin Kirkland wrote: ... I am willing help with the maintainership of the LTP package in Debian, if you're still looking for volunteers. This package has been orphaned. If you still want to collaborate, please prepare an upload for Debian and take over the package's maintenance. Thanks, -- Atomo64 - Raphael Please avoid sending me Word, PowerPoint or Excel attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
