On 2014-01-05 08:16, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 10:34:49AM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> [...]
>
>> On a related note, I suspect a good part of this problem would go away
>> if we had an automated tool to deal with the case where a (sid-only)
>> FTBFS is ignored. It happens
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 10:34:49AM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> > You rightly point out that keeping the architectures in testing has a
> > cost, because the architectures will block testing migration. But are
> > the kfreebsd archs actually causing testing blockages, in practice? If
> > there a
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 4:34 AM, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> I wonder, how is the release team measuring this? For the other ports that
>> you mention, you've pointed to concrete technical problems that are in line
>> with the previously-documented release qualification guidelines. kfreebsd,
>> OTOH,
On 2013-11-29 04:14, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi Niels,
>
Hi Steve,
Sorry for the long overdue answer,
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 09:04:56PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> kFreeBSD was a technology preview, and has not generated enough user
>> interest to bring in sufficient install base to conti
On 23 December 2013 16:54, Niels Thykier wrote:
> On 2013-12-23 00:54, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
>> On 22 December 2013 16:56, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>>> Dimitri John Ledkov (2013-12-22):
On 28 November 2013 20:04, Niels Thykier wrote:
> * Architecture Status
>* ia64 in dange
]] Niels Thykier
> The release team will generally remove the endangered architectures from
> testing. What happens from there on is beyond the jurisdiction of the
> release team (or, at least, beyond the jurisdiction that the release
> team wants). Though it has been implied by the FTP masters
On 2013-12-23 00:54, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> On 22 December 2013 16:56, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>> Dimitri John Ledkov (2013-12-22):
>>> On 28 November 2013 20:04, Niels Thykier wrote:
* Architecture Status
* ia64 in danger
* sparc/ppc/mips/kfreebsd at risk
* s3
On 22 December 2013 16:56, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Dimitri John Ledkov (2013-12-22):
>> On 28 November 2013 20:04, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> > * Architecture Status
>> >* ia64 in danger
>> >* sparc/ppc/mips/kfreebsd at risk
>> >* s390 dropped from testing
>>
>> Is "ppc" - powerpc or
Dimitri John Ledkov (2013-12-22):
> On 28 November 2013 20:04, Niels Thykier wrote:
> > * Architecture Status
> >* ia64 in danger
> >* sparc/ppc/mips/kfreebsd at risk
> >* s390 dropped from testing
>
> Is "ppc" - powerpc or ppc64?
powerpc. (For ppc64, same answer as below.)
> Is p
On 28 November 2013 20:04, Niels Thykier wrote:
> * Architecture Status
>* ia64 in danger
>* sparc/ppc/mips/kfreebsd at risk
>* s390 dropped from testing
Is "ppc" - powerpc or ppc64?
Is ppc64 looking healthy enought to become a release architecture for jessie?
What about x32? Is it g
Le 15/12/2013 13:03, Niels Thykier a écrit :
>>> Keeping them around is different from them being considered as release
>>> architectures (or even just keeping them in testing). Keeping these
>>> architectures in testing do involve a burden, like blocking testing
>>> migration when they FTBFS[1].
On 2013-11-29 10:27, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> Le 28/11/2013 21:52, Niels Thykier a écrit :
>>> [...]
>>
>> Keeping them around is different from them being considered as release
>> architectures (or even just keeping them in testing). Keeping these
>> architectures in testing do involve a burden,
On 2013-11-29 10:48, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-11-28 at 21:04 +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> In this new and exciting update from your Debian Release Team...
>
>> kFreeBSD was a technology preview, and has not generated enough user
>> interest to bring in sufficient install base to cont
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013 14:32:32 +0100 (CET), Thorsten Glaser
wrote:
>On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>
>> Does it have IPMI, LOM/DRAC/ILO/some sort of remote management or is all
>> that serial console + networked power switch? I suspect Debian would be
>
>Isn’t “serial console + networked
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> Does it have IPMI, LOM/DRAC/ILO/some sort of remote management or is all
> that serial console + networked power switch? I suspect Debian would be
Isn’t “serial console + networked power switch” preferable?
See http://fish2.com/ipmi/ (“IPMI: Freight
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] David Kuehling
>
>> > "Aron" == Aron Xu writes:
>>
>> > And here you are: http://item.taobao.com/item.htm?id=22206048695
>>
>> > Price is CNY 3999 right now, seems to be much cheaper than before (I
>> > remember it was about CNY6999)
On 4 December 2013 07:32, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>
> Does it have IPMI, LOM/DRAC/ILO/some sort of remote management or is all
> that serial console + networked power switch? I suspect Debian would be
> more interested in the 3A 2001 server, any idea about cost for that?
> (And same question for
]] David Kuehling
> > "Aron" == Aron Xu writes:
>
> > And here you are: http://item.taobao.com/item.htm?id=22206048695
>
> > Price is CNY 3999 right now, seems to be much cheaper than before (I
> > remember it was about CNY6999).
>
> I recently ordered the Xinghuo 3A 6100 directly from le
> "Aron" == Aron Xu writes:
> And here you are: http://item.taobao.com/item.htm?id=22206048695
> Price is CNY 3999 right now, seems to be much cheaper than before (I
> remember it was about CNY6999).
I recently ordered the Xinghuo 3A 6100 directly from lemote.com, by
emailing the sales peop
On 3 December 2013 12:31, Hector Oron wrote:
> Hello Aron,
>
> 2013/12/3 Aron Xu :
> > On Tuesday, December 3, 2013, Hector Oron wrote:
>
> >> Debian is currently being bitten by MIPS chinese prototype boards that
> >> behave unreliably and are hard to replace.
> >> I, personally, think that bein
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:29 AM, Graham Whaley wrote:
> On 3 December 2013 12:31, Hector Oron wrote:
>>
>> Hello Aron,
>>
>> 2013/12/3 Aron Xu :
>> > On Tuesday, December 3, 2013, Hector Oron wrote:
>>
>> >> Debian is currently being bitten by MIPS chinese prototype boards that
>> >> behave unreli
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 8:31 PM, Hector Oron wrote:
> Hello Aron,
>
> 2013/12/3 Aron Xu :
>> On Tuesday, December 3, 2013, Hector Oron wrote:
>
>>> Debian is currently being bitten by MIPS chinese prototype boards that
>>> behave unreliably and are hard to replace.
>>> I, personally, think that bei
Hello Aron,
2013/12/3 Aron Xu :
> On Tuesday, December 3, 2013, Hector Oron wrote:
>> Debian is currently being bitten by MIPS chinese prototype boards that
>> behave unreliably and are hard to replace.
>> I, personally, think that being able to buy (if needed) hardware is
>> not bad idea either,
On Tuesday, December 3, 2013, Hector Oron wrote:
> Hello,
>
> 2013/12/3 Aron Xu >:
>
> >> What do you think of Lemote Spark 3A 6100 machines? As those as
> >> suitable as the motherboards you propose?
>
> > As mentioned previously, we have a board donated by Lemote, which I
> believe
> > is a very
Hello,
2013/12/3 Aron Xu :
>> What do you think of Lemote Spark 3A 6100 machines? As those as
>> suitable as the motherboards you propose?
> As mentioned previously, we have a board donated by Lemote, which I believe
> is a very early version of the board that have been used for their internal
>
On Tuesday, December 3, 2013, Hector Oron wrote:
> Hello,
>
> 2013/12/2 Graham Whaley >:
>
> > If this works out, my intention is to purchase three 3A motherboards to
> > donate for mipsel use (2x buildd, 1x porter I'd expect?). Then *maybe* we
> > could move one of the BCM91250 Swarm boards over
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 07:35:59PM +, Graham Whaley wrote:
> Hi.
> As Aron says, the Loongson 3A boards may offer us some solution here, for
> mipsel anyhow, and maybe that offers us a mid-term solution for mips(be)
> whilst I work on other hardware options.
> The Loongson 3A CPU patches
Hello,
2013/12/2 Graham Whaley :
> If this works out, my intention is to purchase three 3A motherboards to
> donate for mipsel use (2x buildd, 1x porter I'd expect?). Then *maybe* we
> could move one of the BCM91250 Swarm boards over from mipsel to mips(be)
> whilst I work on some other BE optio
Hi.
As Aron says, the Loongson 3A boards may offer us some solution here, for
mipsel anyhow, and maybe that offers us a mid-term solution for mips(be)
whilst I work on other hardware options.
The Loongson 3A CPU patches are 'in flight' over at linux-mips.org I
believe. We will be testing the stab
On 2013-12-02 08:30, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Op 28-11-13 21:04, Niels Thykier schreef:
It has also come to our attention that a few buildds do not use
throw-away chroots. This sometimes results in unclean builds and we
have therefore decided to only consider architectures which use
throw-away chr
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 08:22:50AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Aurelien Jarno
>
> > Also note that the latest batches of the Loongson-2F CPUs have the bug
> > fixed.
>
> That doesn't help us when the MIPS porters seem to be unable to get us
> any reasonable machine with the bug fixed, eve
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 08:30:45 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op 28-11-13 21:04, Niels Thykier schreef:
> > It has also come to our attention that a few buildds do not use
> > throw-away chroots. This sometimes results in unclean builds and we
> > have therefore decided to only consider archite
Cyril Brulebois writes ("Re: Release sprint results - team changes, auto-rm and
arch status"):
> Wouter Verhelst (2013-12-02):
> > It will revert to throwaway chroots the minute LVM gets unbroken in
> > stable.
>
> What's the bug report for the issue you
>> Wouter Verhelst (2013-12-02):
>>> It will revert to throwaway chroots the minute LVM gets unbroken in
>>> stable.
>FWIW, ARM buildds are quite fine on stable LVM snaphots.
Hrm, ARM is little-endian, right?
LVM snapshots are apparently (according to the buildd
maintainers who run that) unstab
On 30/11/13 17:56, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Niels Thykier , 2013-11-28, 21:04:
>> Starting today, all non-key packages with RC bugs in Jessie for more than 15
>> days will be considered for auto-removal, even if they have reverse
>> dependencies. This also means that the removal of these packages will
Hello,
2013/12/2 Cyril Brulebois :
> Wouter Verhelst (2013-12-02):
>> It will revert to throwaway chroots the minute LVM gets unbroken in
>> stable.
> What's the bug report for the issue you're mentioning?
[..]
< zumbi> waldi: are there plans to fix lvm2 snapshot in stable?
(#659762) - I was wo
Wouter Verhelst (2013-12-02):
> It will revert to throwaway chroots the minute LVM gets unbroken in
> stable.
What's the bug report for the issue you're mentioning?
In the meanwhile, I think tarball-based chroots are an alternative as
far as sbuild/schroot are concerned.
How are the other power
Op 28-11-13 21:04, Niels Thykier schreef:
> It has also come to our attention that a few buildds do not use
> throw-away chroots. This sometimes results in unclean builds and we
> have therefore decided to only consider architectures which use
> throw-away chroots for all suites on all buildds as c
]] Aurelien Jarno
> Also note that the latest batches of the Loongson-2F CPUs have the bug
> fixed.
That doesn't help us when the MIPS porters seem to be unable to get us
any reasonable machine with the bug fixed, even after repeated
proddings. IIRC, aba has been poking at this on and off for a
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 11:25:01PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > MUL is a MIPS32 instruction, which is not present on MIPS3 CPUs like the
> > Loongson 2, MULT + MFLO should be used instead. There is no CPU bug
> > there, it's like trying to build x86 code with SSE4 instructions, and
> > then sayi
On Fri, 2013-11-29 at 15:12 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 01:57:39PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-11-29 at 09:22 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > Some precision about the MIPS machines:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 09:04:56PM +0100, Niels Thykier w
Ian Jackson writes:
> I've heard it observed that it's rather odd that a developer doing an
> upload can only reduce the delay from the default, and not increase it.
> I found this a moderately convincing line of reasoning but arguably it
> should be accompanied by a change to the migration time
On 2013-11-29 09:22, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 09:04:56PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> Note that s390x and powerpc could also do with more porters, but at
>> this time we are not giving an official warning for them.
>
> I see on http://release.debian.org/jessie/arch_qualify
Joey Hess writes ("Re: Release sprint results - team changes, auto-rm and arch
status"):
> Reducing the upload urgency to medium by default both seems to have hard
> to quantify risks in reducing the quality of testing, and undercuts the
> motivation for this proposal. So I
At DebConf there was an interesting proposal by Colin and Steve to
reduce testing migration times for packages that have an succeeding
autopkgtest. This would increase motivation for adding autopkgtests to
packages. More importantly, it would speed up testing propigation,
without a sacrifice in tes
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 05:56:51PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Niels Thykier , 2013-11-28, 21:04:
Hi,
> >We believe that it should be acceptable for most uploads to
> >unstable to be uploaded with medium urgency, to reduce the delay
> >for testing migrations.
>
> Huh. §5.6.7 says that Urgency “
* Niels Thykier , 2013-11-28, 21:04:
Starting today, all non-key packages with RC bugs in Jessie for more than 15
days will be considered for auto-removal, even if they have reverse
dependencies. This also means that the removal of these packages will cause
the removal of all their reverse depe
Le Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 04:45:10PM +0100, Daniel Pocock a écrit :
>
> It could be argued that the "cost" of these other architectures is not a
> one-sided equation - their presence contributes in some way to the
> overall quality of the software that people include in Debian. So the
> net cost ma
(Re-posting, pressed send accidentally.)
On Friday, November 29, 2013, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Some precision about the MIPS machines:
>
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 09:04:56PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> > * [mips, mipsel] buildds/porterboxes run on hardware which is very old
> or has known defe
On Friday, November 29, 2013, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Some precision about the MIPS machines:
>
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 09:04:56PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> > * [mips, mipsel] buildds/porterboxes run on hardware which is very old
> or has known defects:
>- mips octeon is unstable
>
> B
On 29/11/13 18:23, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On 29/11/13 16:36, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> It seems likely to me that that bug is, at root, a race of some kind.
>> And it just so happens that the race is lost on kFreeBSD - sometimes.
>>
>> Detecting such a race is valuable to the project; it's certainly
On 29/11/13 16:36, Ian Jackson wrote:
> It seems likely to me that that bug is, at root, a race of some kind.
> And it just so happens that the race is lost on kFreeBSD - sometimes.
>
> Detecting such a race is valuable to the project; it's certainly not a
> disbenefit. After all, a race that hap
Daniel Pocock writes ("Re: Release sprint results - team changes, auto-rm and
arch status"):
> I have had unusual issues on kFreeBSD with reSIProcate although that is
> partly because the unit tests are so exhaustive that they expose obscure
> bugs, e.g.
> http://list.r
On 29/11/13 04:14, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi Niels,
>
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 09:04:56PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> kFreeBSD was a technology preview, and has not generated enough user
>> interest to bring in sufficient install base to continue in this
>> state.
> I wonder, how is the releas
On 2013-11-28 21:04, Niels Thykier wrote:
> In this new and exciting update from your Debian Release Team...
Thanks for the updates!
> Architecture Status
> ===
>
> ia64 causes us concern for the following reasons:
> We have stopped considering ia64 as a blocker for testing
> mi
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 01:57:39PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-11-29 at 09:22 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > Some precision about the MIPS machines:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 09:04:56PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> > > * [mips, mipsel] buildds/porterboxes run on hardware w
On Fri, 2013-11-29 at 09:22 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Some precision about the MIPS machines:
>
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 09:04:56PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> > * [mips, mipsel] buildds/porterboxes run on hardware which is very old or
> > has known defects:
> >- mips octeon is unsta
On 11/29/13 10:22, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 09:04:56PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
* [mips, mipsel] buildds/porterboxes run on hardware which is very old or has
known defects:
- mips octeon is unstable
Better me more precise there, Octeon machines in general are ver
On Thu, 2013-11-28 at 21:04 +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> In this new and exciting update from your Debian Release Team...
> kFreeBSD was a technology preview, and has not generated enough user
> interest to bring in sufficient install base to continue in this
> state.
>
> We will review this sit
Le 28/11/2013 21:52, Niels Thykier a écrit :
>> I've found the builds on the less used architectures have been useful
>> for flushing out unusual bugs, particularly when the code ships with
>> many test cases and it exposes problems for big endian machines, etc.
>>
>> Also, kFreeBSD and HURD are bo
On 11/29/2013 09:48 AM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> s390 and Hurd will not be release architectures for Jessie.
>
> Two words: THANK. YOU.
However, m68k will be.
*preparing to run as fast as I can*
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org
`. `' Freie
Le jeudi 28 novembre 2013 à 21:04 +0100, Niels Thykier a écrit :
> We have stopped considering ia64 as a blocker for testing
> migration.
> The architectures sparc, mips and mipsel also cause concern:
> kFreeBSD was a technology preview, and has not generated enough user
> interest to bring in
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 09:04:56PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Note that s390x and powerpc could also do with more porters, but at
> this time we are not giving an official warning for them.
I see on http://release.debian.org/jessie/arch_qualify.html that you are
concerned by the fact s390x is s
Some precision about the MIPS machines:
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 09:04:56PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> * [mips, mipsel] buildds/porterboxes run on hardware which is very old or
> has known defects:
>- mips octeon is unstable
Better me more precise there, Octeon machines in general are ver
Hi Niels,
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 09:04:56PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> kFreeBSD was a technology preview, and has not generated enough user
> interest to bring in sufficient install base to continue in this
> state.
I wonder, how is the release team measuring this? For the other ports that
y
]] Niels Thykier
> However, I would not be surprised if DSA were to object to maintaining
> machines running sid.
With the (grumbling) exception of new architectures where there is
sometimes a bootstrapping problem, we want to run stable on buildds and
porter boxes, yes.
--
Tollef Fog Heen, wi
On 2013-11-28 21:24, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> I've found the builds on the less used architectures have been useful
> for flushing out unusual bugs, particularly when the code ships with
> many test cases and it exposes problems for big endian machines, etc.
>
> Also, kFreeBSD and HURD are both kind
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 28/11/13 21:04, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Architecture Status ===
>
> ia64 causes us concern for the following reasons:
>
> * binutils issues (#718047, #720404), resulting in build failures
> blocking transitions
>
> * man
68 matches
Mail list logo
