Hello, 2013/12/3 Aurelien Jarno <aurel...@aurel32.net>:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 12:43:36AM +0100, Hector Oron wrote: >> 5.2 Setup arm64 debian-ports >> ──────────────────────────── >> >> ⁃ arm64 setup as new bootstrapping port >> ⁃ manual builds could be uploaded but possible lack of space >> ⁃ 9 more packages needed for a minimal bootstrap > I have been contacted by Wookey earlier this year about adding arm64 > port to debian-ports, and everything is now ready. I am still waiting > for the buildds email addresses and ssh key though. > > It is already possible to upload packages, as space is not an issue on > debian-ports since we moved to the machine offered by DSA. That said > adding a new architecture is a problem (I had to add mips64el on the > waiting list recently), as we are lacking CPU and disk I/O. Remember we > have about 2/3 of the architectures in the official Debian archive, on > a single virtual machine. Wookey, any ETA for providing buildds email addresses and ssh key? Aurelien, currently debian-ports is a libvirt VM all by itself on DL850 hardware, which it is undesired, so debian-ports cannot have more resources on that machine until it moves away (preferably as Debian service if that's desired). >> 7 Debian-Ports integration in Debian >> ════════════════════════════════════ > I find strange that it has been discussed and actions have been taken > during an ARM bof, without having been contacted. Anyway let's see the > various points: Aurelien, this is chicken-egg problem, I added that point for discussion for the meeting (which was published when announced the discussion agenda, few months away). I was wanting to discuss with you, once there is some material for discussion. Actions have not yet been taken, as it needs to be discussed with you. Let's have a look to the issues more deeply: >> debian-ports needs a user mailing list. > > That could be a good idea. Note however that there is currently a > buildd-maintain...@debian-ports.org contacting the buildd maintainers of > all architectures there. There are no public forums for debian-ports discussions. Some debian-ports buildd maintainers would benefit from that so share experiences and share common problems. It would also be a common ground to know which ports are being added/removed, etc... Instead of handling that in private. I think we all are in the same thinking that a mailing list would be good. So, for fixing the problem: >> Which mailing list should be used for debian-ports discussion? > > I am opened to suggestions that do not involve the debian-ports machine, > as the goal is to reduce the things hosted there. While the ARM sprint, Manuel Montecelo suggested to create one in alioth or we can either replace debian-po...@lists.debian.org alias by proper mailing list, as that list currently spams all porters lists, and some people is annoyed with it. Options: a. create new mailing list on alioth b. re-purpose debian-ports@l.d.o c. other >> 7.1 Hand machine over to DSA >> ──────────────────────────── >> >> All that needs to be done to handover machine to DSA: >> ⁃ Identify services running on d-ports >> ⁃ Transfer services to DSA machine >> ⁃ Transfer domain names to DSA > > As already said earlier, I am fine doing that as long as we do not loose > features or contributors. What is clearly missing in the list above, is > the manpower to do the transfer and the maintenance once the transfer is > done (unless DSA is planning to do the full administration, including > wanna-build, archive, ...). No DSA should not do the service administration. I would expect the manpower to do the transfer and maintenance would be done by debian-ports team (which includes you, me and other people behind the curtains if there are some). > Here is the list of services: > - mini-dak for running the archive > - FTP server for uploading packages and serving the archive and CD images > - web server for serving the archive and CD images > - wanna-build > - postgresql for wanna-build > - web server for wanna-build frontend (pgstatus) > - mail server + wbpy to store the build logs > - rsync server for serving the archive, currently restricted to mirrors > due to I/O issues > - git server and web server for the code and data used on debian-ports > - script to create an incoming directory > - script for transitions tracking (ben) > - POP3S server for buildds behind NAT > - DNS server for debian-ports.org > - web server for the public website > - IPv6: not really a service, but used for buildds without public IPv4 I opened RT#4808, attaching that list, in case, we decide to take action on it. >> 7.2 Enable unreleased suite handling in archive tools >> ───────────────────────────────────────────────────── >> >> Aparently, keeping separated archive for debian-ports would be good, >> so we can still have waky-hacks in -ports, while do clean bootstrap in >> Debian archives. > > The unreleased suite is a very important feature that should not be > lost, unless we allow porters to NMU packages in a short timeframe and > even during freeze. Another feature of the archive is to be able to > upload packages versions newer than the current one, but older than in > the sources. This allow things to progress even if the current package > in unstable is broken and the maintainer doesn't cares about ports. > > People proposed to add theses features to dak, but nobody actually did > the job so far. In general, people was not kind on merging debian-ports archives with Debian ones, the main points I got: - People doing nasty stuff to get ports bootstrapped - Wanted a clean bootstrap in official Debian archives - ftp-master tools do not support unreleased suite (which maybe with multi-archive support could be fixed in the long run) In particular, I asked directly to Mark Hymers (ftp-master) and he liked more the option of debian-ports having its own separated archive. In conclusion, I believe debian-ports could and should be running the software is currently running with no changes. Do you agree? >> 7.3 Merge wanna-build DB into official one >> ────────────────────────────────────────── >> >> ⁃ We want to be able to keep same architecture in both Debian and >> Debian-ports (Note: Debian-ports packages carry scary hacks, and >> Debian bootstrap should start from clean start) > > Note that we are running the same software than in Debian, even if it > is sometimes lagging a bit. Thanks to Philip Kern for his work on that. > > Remember that it means wanna-build should look for unreleased. Also > remember it means that non-DD should be able to access wanna-build. If > possible the same persons should also have a shell with access to the > packages files and wanna-build to be able to handle transitions and > schedule NMUs, like the release team is doing. This point ought to be discussed with Philip Kern, I have not yet got around to that. Philip, would you mind to let us know your thoughts on the matter? Do you prefer to keep two separated databases for wanna-build or merge them? Please, also consider that ftp-master is working on multi-archive support and that might need a database re-design. >> 7.4 Enable non-DD uploaders for d-ports >> ─────────────────────────────────────── >> >> ⁃ Recognise porting work in the NM process independently of whether >> individual packages are listed as being maintained by that >> person. Needs some tools or existing tools adapting to ports >> structure. > > I don't really see the point, as it is already the case. Actually most > of the uploaders in debian-ports are non-DD, and it is something that > should not be lost in the transfer either. If debian-ports is converted to official Debian service, then all the user database is extracted from LDAP, which allows access to DD, but non-DD have a problem (similar with alioth guest accounts). Somehow that needs to be solved. While in the sprint, few DAM members were around and we were able to discuss it a little bit. Apparently, the consensus was to make those people Debian contributors or the such early in the process, if I understood correctly. To be clear, we all want those non-DD to continue to do their work transparently, but there are some technical/structural challenges to solve before making it a reality. Maybe some DAM member can throw more light on how can we enabling those people, maybe is not that much of a problem if we keep a separated archive for debian-ports. Aurelien, here I am trying to solve a long standing problem, not making it worse, which involves several teams and I would like to be carefully planned before any action is taken. Somehow, I assume the move of debian-ports into Debian infrastructure is wanted, if not, please say so and I'll stop here. Thanks. Regards, -- Héctor Orón -.. . -... .. .- -. -.. . ...- . .-.. --- .--. . .-. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAODfWeHOBNwsBMggh-+AeaHO5J2maqwLc6VhW9ofBD9G=o-...@mail.gmail.com
