Hi Thorsten, thanks for your help!
On 12/15/2013 02:59 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Helge Deller dixit: > >> We noticed, that when we manually binmnu-upload packages, which are >> already in the *same version* on debian-ports, then debian-ports ACCEPT > > When you binNMU packages you add a +b1, +b2, … suffix to their > versions. ITYM porter upload? Yes, we did correct binNMU uploads for packages which already existed in the same version in the repo. But there were lots of packages which were outdated (the hppa build servers stopped in 2011!) and for those we just rebuilt from current source and uploaded with the current version. >> those packages, but if we then try to apt-get-update those later on, this >> leads >> to a "size mismatch" error. I do have the feeling, that this is a >> problem on debian-ports. > > I noticed this problem too, when I accidentally built a package > I already had uploaded (and totally forgotten about): basically, > the new *.deb files are accepted but the Packages file still > contains the checksums etc. from the old *.deb file. Ok, so it's a generic problem. > Only way to fix this is to reupload the old *.changes file, or > to do a binNMU proper. Or to build a newer version, ofc… Yes, this is how we solved it too (binNMU) then. >> So, I'm anxious, that if I start the buildd, it will happily build and >> upload packages >> which we already uploaded to debian-ports. If this happens we will get more >> size-mismatch errors. > > That’s what you have wanna-build for. Basically, stop doing > manual uploads without wanna-build locking at least six hours > before turning on the first buildd. After that time, when you > want/need to build a package manually, lock it in wanna-build: > either “take” it for building, or mark as N-F-U. Ok. > See here for more info on that: > > • https://wiki.debian.org/M68k/Porting#binNMU_notes > • http://lists.debian.org/debian-68k/2012/12/msg00124.html > • http://lists.debian.org/debian-68k/2013/10/msg00021.html Good links. Thanks! > If you have packages that buildds should never build, for example > like we had gcc-4.{6,8} for some time, mark them as Not-For-Us; > otherwise, just take them for building. > >> deller@leda:~$ wb info hello . hppa > > This the same as “wanna-build -A hppa -d unstable --info hello”. > >> But on http://ftp.debian-ports.org/debian/pool-hppa/main/h/hello/ you can >> see, that the hello-package is already uploaded at version 2.8-4 > > Indeed. This is bad, new, another / a different problem, and we > didn’t have this on m68k. (Note that uploads usually take a bit > until they show up on w-b, hence the need for locking.) It seems the wb-database was turned off because we didn't had buildd servers for quite some time. Aurelien will turn it back on again. >> So, if my buildd now uploads the newly created hello package, I'm sure >> we will run again into the size-mismatch problem. > > Yes, you will definitely run into that problem when you upload > hello_2.8-4_hppa again. > >> My question here on the list would be, if you (other arch-porters) do have >> an idea >> on how I should proceed. > > Either… > >> Best solution would probably be, if the wanna-build database rescans what's >> in >> the archive already. Is this possible? > > … that (no idea if it’s possible), or make two lists: a list of what > is currently in the archive for hppa, and a list of packages in the > Needs-Build or BD-Uninstallable¹ state. Then, for every package in > the same versions (except +b* sufficēs) in *both* lists, schedule a > binNMU (e.g. to get hello_2.8-4+b1_hppa). Do note whether it already > got a binNMU suffix: e.g. aclock.app_0.2.3-3+b4 would need to be > scheduled for --binNMU=5 to be larger. > > You might be able to cheat, e.g. take hello for building, then tell > it that you uploaded it. But I don’t know why w-b doesn’t register > that it’s there in the first place, so a rescan, if possible, should > happen first. Before Aurelien's answer I was thinking if this could work on leda too: touch -d2013-01-01 ~/ref cd /srv/mini-dak/ftp/debian/pool-hppa/main find . -newer ~/ref | grep .changes$ Basically it would just try to find all packages (.changes) which we uploaded after january 2012. Then in the next step maybe use the "--pretend-avail" option of wb to tell it that this package is already up-to-date. Not sure if this would work though... But I will now first wait until the wb-database will gets activated again and check then. > Hm, only 12 packages here: > tg@leda:~$ wanna-build -A hppa -d unstable --list=needs-build | less > But this has more (9043): > tg@leda:~$ wanna-build -A hppa -d unstable --list=bd-uninstallable | less > > ① You need to include BD-Uninstallable because they will happily > convert to Needs-Build once you upload e.g. perl. > >> Or, should I just start the buildd and see what's happening? If we then get > > No, get the w-b list consistent first. Ok. > According to > http://ftp.debian-ports.org/debian/dists/unstable/main/binary-hppa/Packages.bz2 > hello is at version 2.8-4 just fine… hmm. So the apt-ftparchive database > seems to be correct. > > > This is all quite complicated, so feel free to ask around when we > can help you out again, no need for every arch to go through all > of this by themselves, figure out best practices again, etc. Again, thanks so much! I'm sure I will need the help here. > HTH & HAND, > //mirabilos Helge -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ia64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52ae1e75.5050...@gmx.de
