On Sat, 8 Nov 2014, Stuart Prescott wrote:
> UDD can help with this.
>
> A list of source packages that have M-A: same binary packages in jessie that
> have different versions in any two release architectures is at:
Can we do this for the triplet (i386, amd64, x32) too, please?
Yes, it’s not a
Hi!
On Sun, 2014-11-09 at 17:18:10 +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> Quoting Ralf Treinen (2014-11-09 15:58:15)
> > Interesting, I did not know this. Is this documented somewhere? I just
> > looked
> > through apt-get(1) man page and couldn't find it there.
>
> it should definitely be documented
+++ Wookey [2014-11-01 14:19 +]:
> +++ Marc Glisse [2014-11-01 11:45 +0100]:
> > Hello,
> >
> > sorry for the naive question, but is there a plan for massively
> > rebuilding all "Multi-Arch: same" packages that have inconsistent
> > version numbers across architectures before releasing Jessie
+++ Marc Glisse [2014-11-01 11:45 +0100]:
>
> A few random packages that currently have an inconsistent version:
> zlib1g (+b1 on ppc64el)
examining this I notice that whilst this page on p.d.o:
https://packages.debian.org/jessie/zlib1g
shows the issue, and so does this buildd one (for unstable)
Hi,
Quoting Ralf Treinen (2014-11-09 18:05:15)
> But this does only one co-installability check at a time, right ?
correct, this makes your solution the better choice.
> Anyway, the script is very simple (attached).
Nifty! I didn't know that dose-debcheck can read from stdin!
> The raw result
On Sun, Nov 09, 2014 at 05:18:10PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
>
> Ah okay! Somehow I misunderstood your initial email that you wanted to say:
>
> Depends: foo:i386, foo:amd64, ..., bar:i386, bar:amd64,...
>
> But instead you just want...
>
> Depends: foo:i386, foo:amd64, ...
>
Hi,
Quoting Ralf Treinen (2014-11-09 15:58:15)
> On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 06:41:24AM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> > Dpkg and apt allow this just fine. Try to do:
> >
> > apt-get install --simulate gcc-4.9-arm-linux-gnueabihf
> >
> > And you will end up with a number of armhf packages on your
Hi Josch,
On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 06:41:24AM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Quoting Ralf Treinen (2014-11-07 17:35:06)
> > It just appeared to me that we probably do not have a syntax to pinpoint a
> > package built for a specific architecture. "We" meaning in this case dpkg,
> > apt, a
On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 12:39:41PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi Ralf,
>
> On Freitag, 7. November 2014, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> > The issue of architecture=all packages that
> > are not installable on some architecture can IMHO not be solved with
> > our current setup which makes architectures=
Hi Michael,
On Samstag, 8. November 2014, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
> Have you considered running a groovy script instead of an external shell
> script? This may make things easier
not really, as I'm not at all groovy with groovy, IOW, I hardly know what it
is :)
> /avoid the external script de
Hi Holger,
On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 15:12:42 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Samstag, 8. November 2014, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > It would be trivial to turn this into a jenkins jobs, shall I?
> >
> > It seems to me, there could be several other UDD querying jobs as well, so
> > my first
Hi,
On Samstag, 8. November 2014, Holger Levsen wrote:
> It would be trivial to turn this into a jenkins jobs, shall I?
>
> It seems to me, there could be several other UDD querying jobs as well, so
> my first suggestion for a name (+namespace) would be
> "udd_multiarch_inconsistencies"... sugges
Hi Ralf,
On Freitag, 7. November 2014, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> > The bad weather in
> > https://qa.debian.org/dose/debcheck/testing_main/index.html is still
> > surprising to see, at this point...
> not at all ! The weather icons are a bit misleading (this is one reason
> why I wasn't such a big fan
Hi,
On Samstag, 8. November 2014, Stuart Prescott wrote:
> UDD can help with this.
of course! :-)
> A list of source packages that have M-A: same binary packages in jessie
> that have different versions in any two release architectures is at:
>
> http://debian.nanonanonano.net/qa/maskew
>
Hi,
On Freitag, 7. November 2014, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> is jenkins not triggered by pushes to git and thus sub-optimal for jobs
> that should be run like a cron job?
jenkins can be triggered by many things, currently jobs on jenkins.d.n are
triggered
- time based
- VCS commit based
- after
Hi,
> Dpkg and apt allow this just fine. Try to do:
>
> apt-get install --simulate gcc-4.9-arm-linux-gnueabihf
>
> And you will end up with a number of armhf packages on your system (you have
> to
> enable armhf beforehand of course).
Interesting, I didn't know that syntax is already supported
Hi,
Quoting Ralf Treinen (2014-11-07 17:35:06)
> It just appeared to me that we probably do not have a syntax to pinpoint a
> package built for a specific architecture. "We" meaning in this case dpkg,
> apt, and dose (if I am not mistaken).
No. We do have it.
> The usual trick in dose would be,
UDD can help with this.
A list of source packages that have M-A: same binary packages in jessie that
have different versions in any two release architectures is at:
http://debian.nanonanonano.net/qa/maskew
There are currently 247 source packages in that list (assuming I've not done
so
+++ Ralf Treinen [2014-11-07 17:35 +0100]:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 02:46:31PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
>
> For this reason we should probably limit ourselves to all the interesting
> cases of combinations of native and foreign architectures. The only
> reasonable combination that I can curren
Hi Holger,
(repliying separately to the two pointes raised by you)
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 02:46:31PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Mittwoch, 5. November 2014, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> > yes, you did miss something :-)
> > first link on the page: "Non-installable packages"
> > https://qa.debian.
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 02:46:31PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > 2) if you ask about co-installablity of packages with the same name but
> > different architectictures (and which are M-A=same) : this is a completely
> > different (and much more interesting) question. Since dose is now
> > multi-
Hi Holger,
Quoting Holger Levsen (2014-11-07 16:31:09)
> > I agree with Ralf, that this would best be done not by debcheck but by a
> > small script which compares if the Packages files for all distributions
> > ship M-A:same packages in the same version.
>
> I'd happily run this script on jenkin
Hi Johannes,
On Freitag, 7. November 2014, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> but was your original question not about debcheck checking for multiarch
> co-installability across architectures?
yes, this was just a btw-question on the side...
> I agree with Ralf, that this would best be done not by debch
Hi Holger,
Quoting Holger Levsen (2014-11-07 15:46:31)
> On Mittwoch, 5. November 2014, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> > yes, you did miss something :-)
> > first link on the page: "Non-installable packages"
> > https://qa.debian.org/dose/debcheck/unstable_main/index.html
>
> thanks! (+doh, I guessed I ov
Hi Ralf,
On Mittwoch, 5. November 2014, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> yes, you did miss something :-)
> first link on the page: "Non-installable packages"
> https://qa.debian.org/dose/debcheck/unstable_main/index.html
thanks! (+doh, I guessed I oversaw these links on the debcheck pages and then
didnt fi
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 04:22:06PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> (also, btw, I couldn't find the daily DOSE runs linked from
> tttps://qa.debian.org/dose - did I miss it or is it missing?)
yes, you did miss something :-)
first link on the page: "Non-installable packages"
then you choose
Hi,
indeed I forgot about multiarch... and I ment that non-installibility is a bug
for sure (though just a sympton of the real bug), but often packages can still
be installed even though the versions of a package differs due to binNMUs.
Andway - more to the point:
(leaving full context for the
On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 13:17:11 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> [ Fixed CC and M-F-T addresses, and bounced to debian-release. ]
>
> Hi!
>
> On Sat, 2014-11-01 at 11:45:56 +0100, Marc Glisse wrote:
> > sorry for the naive question, but is there a plan for massively rebuilding
> > all "Multi-Arch:
+++ Marc Glisse [2014-11-01 11:45 +0100]:
> Hello,
>
> sorry for the naive question, but is there a plan for massively
> rebuilding all "Multi-Arch: same" packages that have inconsistent
> version numbers across architectures before releasing Jessie?
I don't know, but I think there should be. Tha
Hi!
On Sat, 2014-11-01 at 11:45:56 +0100, Marc Glisse wrote:
> sorry for the naive question, but is there a plan for massively rebuilding
> all "Multi-Arch: same" packages that have inconsistent version numbers
> across architectures before releasing Jessie?
That's something for the release-team
On Sat, 1 Nov 2014, Holger Levsen wrote:
Hi Marc,
On Samstag, 1. November 2014, Marc Glisse wrote:
sorry for the naive question, but is there a plan for massively rebuilding
all "Multi-Arch: same" packages that have inconsistent version numbers
across architectures before releasing Jessie?
[.
On 11/01/2014 at 07:38 AM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> On Samstag, 1. November 2014, Marc Glisse wrote:
>
>> sorry for the naive question, but is there a plan for massively
>> rebuilding all "Multi-Arch: same" packages that have inconsistent
>> version numbers across architectures before
Hi Marc,
On Samstag, 1. November 2014, Marc Glisse wrote:
> sorry for the naive question, but is there a plan for massively rebuilding
> all "Multi-Arch: same" packages that have inconsistent version numbers
> across architectures before releasing Jessie?
[...]
> A few random packages that current
Hello,
sorry for the naive question, but is there a plan for massively rebuilding
all "Multi-Arch: same" packages that have inconsistent version numbers
across architectures before releasing Jessie?
I understand that in testing or unstable, rebuilding for all platforms
every time a single on
34 matches
Mail list logo
