Re: Upgrading pristine-xz on jubany
On 06/06/12 13:43, John Arbash Meinel wrote: > We're trying to work with webops to get Jubany at least upgraded from > Lucid to Precise, Great, what's the estimated timeline for that? > and then follow it up with something beyond that. > We're considering trying to get an LXC running Q, or maybe just > backporting Q's pristine-tar for precise. An LXC just for this feels like an overengineered solution to me. Even backporting Q's pristine-tar to precise puts Canonical Ops on the critical path, whereas we could avoid that by doing what we've done for bzr itself and install a suitably recent version just for the pkg_import user. Max. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: Repairing a broken package import
On 06/06/12 00:01, Barry Warsaw wrote: > Today I wanted to work on the apport packaging branch, but the importer has > been failing on this package: > > http://package-import.ubuntu.com/status/apport.html#2012-01-26 06:59:16.573850 apport isn't maintained in its UDD branches. It's maintained in the branches owned by ~ubuntu-core-dev. We need to delete all the spurious ~ubuntu-branches branches for it, and tell the importer to never import apport. The issue is that the existing apport Ubuntu branches do not use a tarball import of upstream. Instead they directly merge from the upstream lp:apport. Max. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: Upgrading pristine-xz on jubany
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 6/6/2012 2:29 PM, Max Bowsher wrote: > There are currently more than 300 packages failing to import due > to pristine-tar failures, mainly in the pristine-xz step. > > I tried one, automake1.11, locally on precise, and pristine-xz > succeeded. > > Consequently, I would like to upgrade pristine-xz on jubany. > > We could do this as a backported package... or we could just skip > the need to route this through the Canonical Sysadmins, and install > an updated version within /srv/package-import.canonical.com/new/ . > > I propose to go ahead with the latter, let me know your thoughts. > > Max. > Hi Max- Vincent has been looking into this. It looks like upgrading to the pristine-tar in precise brings us from 300 failures to about 250, upgrading to Q's pristine-tar actually brings us to about 150 failures. We're trying to work with webops to get Jubany at least upgraded from Lucid to Precise, and then follow it up with something beyond that. We're considering trying to get an LXC running Q, or maybe just backporting Q's pristine-tar for precise. John =:-> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk/PUFgACgkQJdeBCYSNAAMzzACgqM0J7aRMen0kUa0lxbqC3jTw uOkAoLULAISoxeNWzHasyu622qf5wypH =KsRG -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Upgrading pristine-xz on jubany
There are currently more than 300 packages failing to import due to pristine-tar failures, mainly in the pristine-xz step. I tried one, automake1.11, locally on precise, and pristine-xz succeeded. Consequently, I would like to upgrade pristine-xz on jubany. We could do this as a backported package... or we could just skip the need to route this through the Canonical Sysadmins, and install an updated version within /srv/package-import.canonical.com/new/ . I propose to go ahead with the latter, let me know your thoughts. Max. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: Repairing a broken package import
> Barry Warsaw writes: > Today I wanted to work on the apport packaging branch, but the importer has > been failing on this package: > http://package-import.ubuntu.com/status/apport.html#2012-01-26 06:59:16.573850 > I took a look at bug 494481, which is referenced by the importer failure > package, but I didn't see anything that exactly matched the traceback. Still, > on the theory that I probably can't break this package any worse than it > already is, I did the following: > bzr tag -r martin.p...@canonical.com-20100624133714-tp43iqk10jzt7ftp \ > upstream-1.14.1 -d :parent > Two questions: > - Did I do the right thing to fix this particular crash? Apparently no :-/ > - Do I need to do anything else explicitly to get this package to > start importing again (i.e. "requeue the package")? I did requeue it during my night and we got the same failure (packages that fails to import stay in an error state which can only be left by an explicit requeue request). > We've talked about adding some remediation hints to the wiki page > but have yet to do so. As a result of this thread, I'll write > something up for https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DistributedDevelopment That would be great ! Now, creating a tag is one thing, making it part of the relevant branches is what matters here (I'm pretty sure about that even if the whole issue is still unclear to me). So the first question that comes to mind is: where did you create this tag and where did you try to propagate it ? The error message mentions natty so that's probably where the tag should be propagated first (i.e. in the official natty packaging branch). Vincent -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
