Hi, On 2023-09-02 19:42, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > > On top of that, those two packages have already been rebuilt for > > riscv64 (no binNMUs required there), whereas if we force another > > upload only to solve this, we will trigger a build for every arch and > > needlessly consume at the very least 77 hours of the riscv builders' > > time (while we are still rebuilding the archive for riscv, delaying it > > all). > > https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=llvm-toolchain-14&arch=riscv64 > > https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=llvm-toolchain-15&arch=riscv64 > > > > Do you think that's a sensible compromise? > > I'm asking to proceed with binNMUs because eg25-manager has been fixed > > in git already and the llvm packages are about to be removed (although > > I want curl to migrate before that), also rebuilding them on riscv > > takes a lot of effort at a not-so-great time (no binNMUs required for > > riscv). > > Please get those uploaded instead. We will rebuild > llvm-toolchain-{14,15} a bunch of times for transitions anyway. If > riscv64 buildds are not ready to cope with that, the architecture is not > ready to become a release architecture.
Please note that avoiding an upload on riscv64 is NOT a request from the riscv64 porters. Despite the long building time, we believe that the build daemons will be able to handle a rebuild of those packages. In addition 2 more buildds are being prepared. Regards Aurelien -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B aurel...@aurel32.net http://aurel32.net
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
