Re: unbreaking LibreOffices tests on at least release architectures

2023-06-19 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 09:31:05AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: >... > I won't be of much help here unfortunately, except > maybe testing patches, but then again there's porterboxes >... You are the only one who could realistically debug many of these. E.g. on armel it says: Fatal exception: Si

Re: unbreaking LibreOffices tests on at least release architectures

2023-06-19 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 11:29:34PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: >... > Am 19.06.23 um 23:19 schrieb Adrian Bunk: >... > > For such a complex package I would expect 32bit breakage in every > > release if upstream no longer tests on 32bit. > Indeed, though at least for 32bit

Re: unbreaking LibreOffices tests on at least release architectures

2023-06-20 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 05:52:44AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: > Hi, > > Am 19.06.23 um 23:29 schrieb Rene Engelhard: > > > The pragmatic option would be to run only a smoketest for build success > > > on architectures not tested by upstream. > > > > And have Format->Character in Impress crash w

Re: LibreOffice bridges/smoketest on mips(64)el (was: Re: unbreaking LibreOffices tests on at least release architectures)

2023-07-04 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 09:31:29PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: > Hi, > > Am 25.06.23 um 13:37 schrieb Rene Engelhard: > > > what about the > > > following: > > > - make all test failures fatal on a*64 (since upstream tests these), and > > > - make smoketest failures fatal on all architectures (in

Re: Architecture qualification meeting, scheduling

2016-10-08 Thread Adrian Bunk
[ fullquote adding -ports, for people not following -release or -devel ] On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 06:35:07PM +0100, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > Hi, > > I am arranging the final architecture qualification meeting for Stretch. > This is primarily of interest to the release team, but I will also take

Re: Bug#845193: dpkg: recent -specs PIE changes break openssl

2016-11-25 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 04:35:28PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: >... > On Thu, 2016-11-24 at 14:52:33 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: >... > > Worse, they break *differently* on whether… > > > > >Precisely to make the behavior consistent on all architectures, dpkg > > >enables PIE (conditionally if n

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Bullseye

2020-12-07 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 01:03:17PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 12/1/20 5:02 AM, YunQiang Su wrote: > > I am sorry for the later response. > >Hi, > > > > I am an active porter for the following architectures and I intend > > to continue this for the lifetime of the Bullseye release (

Re: Porter roll call for Debian Bullseye

2020-12-29 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 01:03:17PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 12/1/20 5:02 AM, YunQiang Su wrote: > > I am sorry for the later response. > >Hi, > > > > I am an active porter for the following architectures and I intend > > to continue this for the lifetime of the Bullseye release (

Re: Bug#980794: octave-iso2mesh: Arbitrary limitation of build architectures

2021-02-01 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 06:12:40PM +0100, Rafael Laboissière wrote: >... > * John Paul Adrian Glaubitz [2021-01-22 12:10]: >... > > The last upload octave-iso2mesh arbitrarily limited the list of build > > architectures on the assumption that only certain architectures have > > buildds with enough

Re: Bug#980794: octave-iso2mesh: Arbitrary limitation of build architectures

2021-02-05 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 07:55:50AM +0100, Rafael Laboissière wrote: >... > If I > understand correctly, the right way to cope with the issue is to contact > individually the maintainers of each architecture with FTBFS and ask them to > upload a correctly built binary package. This will have to be d