Dear Bastian,
Il 05/01/25 21:20, Bastian Germann ha scritto:
Am 05.01.25 um 13:39 schrieb Antonio Valentino:
Dear Bastian,
I see that you have reverted the change that I did to remove mops32el
from the list of architectures for c-blosc2 [1].
I understand that you claim is that now c-blosc2 pass all tests also
on mips64el but I see that c-blosc2 2.15.2+ds-5 still fails on that
platform [2].
I requested access to eberlin.debian.org but, unfortunately, I was not
able to reproduce the issue. Never the less sbuilts still seem to fail.
Please not that in that, before toy last change, I opened a but to
request the removal of libblosc2* form mips64el.
I would appreciate any support for solving the issue.
Could you please provide more details about why you concluded that the
build is not successful?
I have built on eberlin.debian.org successfully before uploading the new
version. Just retried and the tests still succeed without segfaults.
That is odd.
In general, in such situations it is advisable to keep arch=any. You can
still ask for RMs for a specific architecture.
A package might be buildable later if someone provides a patch, a
dependency is fixed or a new version has some upstream fix. Also, the
debports are still being built wih arch=any. So please do not reapply
the arch list. FTP Masters will remove the pkg on mips64el regardless
and then it can migrate.
Removing c-blosc2 from mips64el without modifying "arch" would be ok for
me, but I would like to be sure that the migration of c-blosc2 is not
blocked after each upload.
Moreover, according to the discussion in [1], apparently the change in
arch is needed, and it is also required to change "arch" for packages
depending on c-blosc2 in order to remove it from mops64el unstable.
This looks strange to me but, apparently, this is the reason why the
migration of c-blosc2 is still blocked.
[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1091836
Are you in the position of investigating the issue on mips64el?
I will see what I can do. Just as a hint: You can sbuild with a mips64el
qemu backend.
I can try but I don't understand hod the result could be more reliable
than building on eberlin.debian.org.
As I said. I was able to successfully build on eberlin.debian.org (like
you) so no clue about the possible issue blocking the official build.
kind regards
--
Antonio Valentino
--
debian-science-maintainers mailing list
debian-science-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
