Re: Rebuilding the entire Debian archive twice on arm64 hardware for fun and proft

On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 7:01 AM Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > i'm going to see if i can get above the 4GB mark by modifying the > Makefile to do 3,000 shared libraries instead of 3,000 static object > files. fail. shared libraries link extremely quickly. reverted to static, trying

Re: Rebuilding the entire Debian archive twice on arm64 hardware for fun and proft

$ python evil_linker_torture.py 3000 100 100 50 ok so that managed to get up to 1.8GB resident memory, paused for a bit, then doubled it to 3.6GB, and a few seconds later successfully outputted a binary. i'm going to see if i can get above the 4GB mark by modifying the Makefile to do 3,000

Re: Rebuilding the entire Debian archive twice on arm64 hardware for fun and proft

On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 6:27 AM Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > i'm just running the above, will hit "send" now in case i can't hit > ctrl-c in time on the linker phase... goodbye world... :) $ python evil_linker_torture.py 2000 50 100 200 $ make -j8 oh, err... whoopsie... is this

Re: Rebuilding the entire Debian archive twice on arm64 hardware for fun and proft

$ python evil_linker_torture.py 2000 50 100 200 ok so it's pretty basic, and arguments of "2000 50 10 100" resulted in around a 10-15 second linker phase, which top showed to be getting up to around the 2-3GB resident memory range. "2000 50 100 200" should start to make even a system

Re: Rebuilding the entire Debian archive twice on arm64 hardware for fun and proft

On Tuesday, January 8, 2019, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 11:46:41PM +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton > wrote: > > > At some point apps are going to become so insanely large that not even > > disabling debug info will help. > > That's less likely, I'd say. Debug info *is*

Re: Rebuilding the entire Debian archive twice on arm64 hardware for fun and proft

On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 11:46:41PM +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > On Tuesday, January 8, 2019, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > . > > > > Note that Firefox is built with --no-keep-memory > > --reduce-memory-overheads, and that was still not enough for 32-bts > > builds. GNU gold instead of

Re: Rebuilding the entire Debian archive twice on arm64 hardware for fun and proft

On Tuesday, January 8, 2019, Mike Hommey wrote: > . > > Note that Firefox is built with --no-keep-memory > --reduce-memory-overheads, and that was still not enough for 32-bts > builds. GNU gold instead of BFD ld was also given a shot. That didn't > work either. Presently, to make things link at

Re: Rebuilding the entire Debian archive twice on arm64 hardware for fun and proft

On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 10:28:31AM +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 11:46 PM Steve McIntyre wrote: > > > > [ Please note the cross-post and respect the Reply-To... ] > > > > Hi folks, > > > > This has taken a while in coming, for which I apologise. There's a lot

Bug#918341: transition: jemalloc

Hi, On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 06:10:02PM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > > So, I'd like to ask for permission to upload jemalloc 5.1.0-2 to sid: > > > Please go ahead. Thank you Emilio & team, appreciate it! I've went ahead and uploaded 5.1.0-2, seems it was successfully built on most

Bug#918620: console-setup: autopkgtest delayed due to binary-all package not installable on amd64

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: britney https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/console-setup console-setup-freebsd/amd64 unsatisfiable Depends: vidcontrol console-setup-freebsd/amd64 unsatisfiable Depends: kbdcontrol uninstallable on

Bug#913674: Preparing p-u upload

Hi Adam, > That's rather large for a regression fix. Agreed. I had previously tried fixing the patch that broke Yubikey NEO support, but I was unsuccessful. This is documented in #910786. I can understand concerns about updating the upstream version; the only other option I see would involve

Re: [britney]: Do you use --control-files or the "legacy package layout" in your derivative?

Iain Lane: > Hey Niels, > > Thanks for the mail! > Hi Iain, Thanks for your reply. :) > On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 07:13:00PM +, Niels Thykier wrote: >> Otherwise, check your britney configuration. If the path set for the >> "TESTING" configuration points to a standard APT mirror (with a

Bug#913674: Preparing p-u upload

On Mon, 2019-01-07 at 18:49 +0100, Hilko Bengen wrote: > I am preparing an stretch-p-u upload of opensc/0.19.0-1~deb9u1 which > is essentially a trivial backport. What should the changelog look > like -- should it be based on the 0.19.0-1 release or should it also > contain the 0.16.0-3+deb9u1

Bug#918501: transition: re2

Hi Emilio (2019.01.07_19:05:02_+0200) > Go ahead. Thanks, uploaded. SR -- Stefano Rivera http://tumbleweed.org.za/ +1 415 683 3272

Bug#913674: Preparing p-u upload

Hi, I am preparing an stretch-p-u upload of opensc/0.19.0-1~deb9u1 which is essentially a trivial backport. What should the changelog look like -- should it be based on the 0.19.0-1 release or should it also contain the 0.16.0-3+deb9u1 which got us into this mess? Cheers, -Hilko

Processed: Re: Bug#918341: transition: jemalloc

Processing control commands: > tags -1 confirmed Bug #918341 [release.debian.org] transition: jemalloc Added tag(s) confirmed. -- 918341: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=918341 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#918341: transition: jemalloc

Control: tags -1 confirmed On 05/01/2019 11:29, Faidon Liambotis wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: transition > > Release Team, > > This has been pending for a long time, and while the pieces have been > mostly

Bug#918029: marked as done (transition: corosync)

Your message dated Mon, 7 Jan 2019 18:06:58 +0100 with message-id and subject line Re: Bug#918029: transition: corosync has caused the Debian Bug report #918029, regarding transition: corosync to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not

Processed: Re: Bug#918539: mini-transition: libnfs

Processing control commands: > tags -1 confirmed Bug #918539 [release.debian.org] mini-transition: libnfs Added tag(s) confirmed. -- 918539: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=918539 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#918308: transition: botan

Control: tags -1 confirmed On 04/01/2019 23:08, Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: transition > > Hi RMs, > > It's a small transition with only three packages: biboumi, > libqtshadowsocks

Bug#918539: mini-transition: libnfs

Control: tags -1 confirmed On 07/01/2019 10:16, Bálint Réczey wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: transition > > Dear Release Team, > > I would like to update libnfs in unstable to the 3.0 version. > > It is built

Processed: Re: Bug#918308: transition: botan

Processing control commands: > tags -1 confirmed Bug #918308 [release.debian.org] transition: botan Added tag(s) confirmed. -- 918308: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=918308 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Processed: Re: Bug#917255: transition: yaml-cpp

Processing control commands: > tags -1 confirmed Bug #917255 [release.debian.org] transition: yaml-cpp Added tag(s) confirmed. -- 917255: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=917255 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#917255: transition: yaml-cpp

Control: tags -1 confirmed On 06/01/2019 03:40, Simon Quigley wrote: > On 1/4/19 3:50 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> On 27/12/2018 05:00, Simon Quigley wrote: >>> On 12/26/18 3:39 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: On 24/12/2018 20:30, Simon Quigley wrote: > Package:

Processed: Re: Bug#918501: transition: re2

Processing control commands: > tags -1 confirmed Bug #918501 [release.debian.org] transition: re2 Added tag(s) confirmed. -- 918501: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=918501 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#918501: transition: re2

Control: tags -1 confirmed On 06/01/2019 20:10, Stefano Rivera wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: transition > > re2 is a C++ regex library, requiring about a transition a year, for > various symbol changes. > >

Bug#891185: marked as done (transition: re2)

Your message dated Mon, 7 Jan 2019 18:35:30 +0200 with message-id <20190107163530.4hyqqtfv5lai2...@elgar.kardiogramm.net> and subject line Re: Bug#891185: transition: re2 has caused the Debian Bug report #891185, regarding transition: re2 to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the

Re: [britney]: Do you use --control-files or the "legacy package layout" in your derivative?

Hi Niela! Am So., 30. Dez. 2018 um 20:19 Uhr schrieb Niels Thykier : > > Hi, > > I am writing to you, because I know that you are (or have been) involved > in setting up or maintaining a britney instance for a Debian derivative. > If you are no longer involving please let me know who to contact

Bug#918136: marked as done (RM: srtp/1.4.5~20130609~dfsg-2)

Your message dated Mon, 7 Jan 2019 14:16:31 +0100 with message-id <20190107131628.ga22...@mapreri.org> and subject line Re: Bug#918136: RM: srtp/1.4.5~20130609~dfsg-2 has caused the Debian Bug report #918136, regarding RM: srtp/1.4.5~20130609~dfsg-2 to be marked as done. This means that you claim

Bug#918372: marked as done (unblock: med-fichier/4.0.0+repack-6)

Your message dated Mon, 7 Jan 2019 13:57:24 +0100 with message-id <20190107125723.gm23...@mapreri.org> and subject line Re: Bug#918372: unblock: med-fichier/4.0.0+repack-6 has caused the Debian Bug report #918372, regarding unblock: med-fichier/4.0.0+repack-6 to be marked as done. This means that

Re: Rebuilding the entire Debian archive twice on arm64 hardware for fun and proft

On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 11:46 PM Steve McIntyre wrote: > > [ Please note the cross-post and respect the Reply-To... ] > > Hi folks, > > This has taken a while in coming, for which I apologise. There's a lot > of work involved in rebuilding the whole Debian archive, and many many > hours spent

Re: [britney]: Do you use --control-files or the "legacy package layout" in your derivative?

Hey Niels, Thanks for the mail! On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 07:13:00PM +, Niels Thykier wrote: > Otherwise, check your britney configuration. If the path set for the > "TESTING" configuration points to a standard APT mirror (with a Release > file) you are unaffected by this mail. If it instead

Re: Heads up to release team about MariadB 10.3

ma 7. tammik. 2019 klo 11.20 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort (po...@debian.org) kirjoitti: .. > https://packages.qa.debian.org/m/mariadb-10.3.html points to an autopkgtest > failure on pam-mysql too, though that one doesn't seem to have a corresponding > bug report yet. That's right, there is no bug

Bug#918539: mini-transition: libnfs

Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition Dear Release Team, I would like to update libnfs in unstable to the 3.0 version. It is built for all release architectures in experimental except for mips* but it is unlikely to have

Re: Bug#918388: fixed in nodejs 10.15.0~dfsg-8

On 06/01/2019 13:11, Pirate Praveen wrote: > [asking -release] > > On 1/6/19 5:31 PM, Pirate Praveen wrote: >> Control: reopen -1 >> >> On Sun, 06 Jan 2019 10:34:48 + =?utf-8?b?SsOpcsOpbXkgTGFs?= >> wrote: >>>* Suggests npm - because nodejs must not be blocked by it. >>> Closes:

Bug#918367: marked as done (nmu: pam-mysql_0.8.0-1)

Your message dated Mon, 7 Jan 2019 10:21:50 +0100 with message-id <2fdb905d-3a89-a30b-0f78-ed1896269...@debian.org> and subject line Re: Bug#918367: nmu: pam-mysql_0.8.0-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #918367, regarding nmu: pam-mysql_0.8.0-1 to be marked as done. This means that you claim

Re: Heads up to release team about MariadB 10.3

Hi Otto, On 06/01/2019 16:08, Otto Kekäläinen wrote: > Hello! > > I just realized that the upload of mariadb-10.3 into Debian includes > the following transitions: > - libmariadbd18 -> libmariadbd19 > - libmariadbclient18 becomes deprecated and fully replaced by the > libmariadb3 library already

Bug#918379: marked as done (please decide: severity of "fails to purge" issues)

Your message dated Mon, 7 Jan 2019 10:14:33 +0100 with message-id <4f315c66-a9e1-a4e4-4e6a-fa042d22c...@debian.org> and subject line Re: Bug#918379: please decide: severity of "fails to purge" issues has caused the Debian Bug report #918379, regarding please decide: severity of "fails to purge"