Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 04:53:51AM +, Clint Adams wrote: > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:27:43AM -0400, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > - It's only useful to talk to a porter if the bug clearly is a porting > > issue, rather than a bug in the package. This isn't always easy to > > make out from the

Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 05:01:12PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote: > > [Wouter Verhelst] > > Please remember that every time a package fails to function correctly > > on a particular architecture, barring toolchain bugs, this is a bug > > in that package itself. > > "Barring toolchain bugs" is a pr

Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

Clint Adams writes: > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:27:43AM -0400, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > What would you think if you saw this happening only on a particular > architecture? > > /usr/bin/ld: non-dynamic relocations refer to dynamic symbol fork@@GLIBC_2.0 > /usr/bin/ld: failed to set dynamic sectio

Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 04:53:51AM +, Clint Adams wrote: > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:27:43AM -0400, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > - I have no clue who the powerpc porters are, if there are any. > > I guess we can't rely on the lenny qualification wiki pages. I'm still interested in powerpc, and

Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:27:43AM -0400, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > - It's only useful to talk to a porter if the bug clearly is a porting > issue, rather than a bug in the package. This isn't always easy to > make out from the build log. What would you think if you saw this happening only on a

Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

Peter Samuelson writes: > There is a perception, which may or may not be grounded in reality, that > _most_ FTBFS from the Debian buildds are either toolchain, kernel, or > libc issues. It is certainly my perception. This has not been my experience. I'm sure it depends on the types of packages

Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

[Wouter Verhelst] > Please remember that every time a package fails to function correctly > on a particular architecture, barring toolchain bugs, this is a bug > in that package itself. "Barring toolchain bugs" is a pretty big caveat. Just as big as "barring kernel and libc issues", some other r

Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > So that would mean they'd almost always need to be assigned to both > the pseudopackage and the original package, which I frankly find to > be a bit of a hassle. That's why affects exists. > Additionally, tags have the interesting feature that you ca

Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:42:14AM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote: > I'm imagining that buildd admins would then just file an FTBFS against > the package, the maintainer would see it, and say "I don't know why > this is failing; looks to be arch-specific", reassign or affects the > bug to the arch spec

Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 02:27:42PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jul 2010, Hector Oron wrote: > > 2010/7/13, Russ Allbery : > > > But if those steps fail and it gets to the point where I'm actively asking > > > for help, my customary experience has been to never get any reply. Mail > >

Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 05:22:12PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > > [Clint Adams] > > Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the buildd admin (if, for some > > reason, the buildd admin is not a porter) to notify an > > architecture's porters of any porting issues manifesting themselves > > in

Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > I can mail to the debian-powerpc mailinglist of course, but that > seems to be mostly a powerpc user support list these days. Since coordinating porters and keeping them coordinated seems to be a problem, and pseudopackages with affects and/or reassign

Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 06:05:45PM +, Clint Adams wrote: > Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the buildd admin > (if, for some reason, the buildd admin is not a porter) > to notify an architecture's porters of any porting issues > manifesting themselves in a package build? As a powerpc buil

Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 12:17:15AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > The maintainer have to fix the missing error checks first. I fail to > see any arch-specific problems, only a missing library. Okay, so your answer is that the maintainer should review the build log, notice the "missing library", and

Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 02:16:59PM +, Clint Adams wrote: > I'd like the people in the buildd-admins-are-doing-the-right-thing > camp to describe the ideal workflow for solving architecture-specific > issues with the ksh[0] package. > [0] https://buildd.debian.org/pkg.cgi?pkg=ksh The maintaine

Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

* Russ Allbery [100714 19:00]: > "Bernhard R. Link" writes: > > * Charles Plessy [100714 02:15]: > > >> In situations where nobody volunteers to do the work of porting leaf > >> packages for scientific computation on embedded arches where nobody > >> will use them, > > > I'd rather think that is

Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

"Bernhard R. Link" writes: > * Charles Plessy [100714 02:15]: >> In situations where nobody volunteers to do the work of porting leaf >> packages for scientific computation on embedded arches where nobody >> will use them, > I'd rather think that is an indicator that a package is not suiteable

Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:07:50PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > I am not asking for throwing away people's work or ignoring their motivation, > but I feel demotivated that I am asked efforts with nothing in return, > since--and this is what makes this mail more or less on-topic in this > thread-

Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 08:44:17PM +0200, Hector Oron wrote: > Maintainers are the ones that know best their software, they are > encouraged to maintain their packages in best manner following a > strict policy and following strict verification and validation > procedures. In Debian, it is requeste

Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

Le Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 09:33:47AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs a écrit : > * Charles Plessy [2010-07-14 02:14:12 CEST]: > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/SecondaryArchitectures > > Isn't that what is about, being second > class architectures? Hi Gerfri

Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

* Charles Plessy [100714 02:15]: > In situations where nobody volunteers to do the work of porting leaf packages > for scientific computation on embedded arches where nobody will use them, I'd rather think that is an indicator that a package is not suiteable for Debian because of poor quality. T

Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

Hi, On Dienstag, 13. Juli 2010, Don Armstrong wrote: > If porters would like psuedopackages for their architecture to track > requests, that can be arranged. I'd say not only porters would benefit from such pseudopackages, but also maintainers, buildd admins and users. But if, there'd need to

Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

Hi! * Charles Plessy [2010-07-14 02:14:12 CEST]: > Le Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 08:44:17PM +0200, Hector Oron a écrit : > > I would also like to point you to http://blog.aurel32.net/?p=58 > > I am sure that we could achieve the suggested goal, which is to have a port > ready and in a good sha

Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

Le Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 08:44:17PM +0200, Hector Oron a écrit : > > 2010/7/13, Petter Reinholdtsen : > > I believe it is a good idea for Debian to drop > > the lesser used architectures to ensure they do not slow down the rate > > of improvement in Debian. > > I am proud of the amount of architec

Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > What we really need here is the push method. There's nothing stoping porters from pulling the status of bugs which need to be handled by the porters and forwarding them to their mailing list; since the maintainer of the psuedopackage would presumably be

Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

Hello, 2010/7/14, Aurelien Jarno : >> You can reassign bugs to multiple packages or use affects to indicate >> that a bug affects multiple packages, so this isn't really a problem. > > What we really need here is the push method. If the information arrives > directly on the porter mailing list it

Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 02:50:03PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jul 2010, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 02:27:42PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > > If porters would like psuedopackages for their architecture to > > > track requests, that can be arranged. [Y'all just

Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

On Tue, 13 Jul 2010, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 02:27:42PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > If porters would like psuedopackages for their architecture to > > track requests, that can be arranged. [Y'all just need to ask, > > point me at some bugs which should be assigned to the

Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 02:27:42PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jul 2010, Hector Oron wrote: > > 2010/7/13, Russ Allbery : > > > But if those steps fail and it gets to the point where I'm actively asking > > > for help, my customary experience has been to never get any reply. Mail > >

Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

On Tue, 13 Jul 2010, Hector Oron wrote: > 2010/7/13, Russ Allbery : > > But if those steps fail and it gets to the point where I'm actively asking > > for help, my customary experience has been to never get any reply. Mail > > seems to just disappear into a black hole. Sometimes this is true even

Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

Hello, 2010/7/13, Russ Allbery : > But if those steps fail and it gets to the point where I'm actively asking > for help, my customary experience has been to never get any reply. Mail > seems to just disappear into a black hole. Sometimes this is true even > for a requeue request, although mostl

Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

Hector Oron writes: > Maintainers are the ones that know best their software, they are > encouraged to maintain their packages in best manner following a strict > policy and following strict verification and validation procedures. In > Debian, it is requested to have that software built in all ar

Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 06:05:45PM +, Clint Adams wrote: > Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the buildd admin > (if, for some reason, the buildd admin is not a porter) > to notify an architecture's porters of any porting issues > manifesting themselves in a package build? > I think you ma

Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

Dear Petter, 2010/7/13, Petter Reinholdtsen : > I believe it is a good idea for Debian to drop > the lesser used architectures to ensure they do not slow down the rate > of improvement in Debian. I am proud of the amount of architectures Debian supports. I also understand its overhead, but I thin

Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

[Clint Adams] > Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the buildd admin (if, for some > reason, the buildd admin is not a porter) to notify an > architecture's porters of any porting issues manifesting themselves > in a package build? You bring up the important topic of expectations on who is resp

Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

On 2010-07-12, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > Or they should work closely with the porters to notify them about build logs > which smell like issues porters should look into. I would consider that 'caring for the port'. /Sune -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a

Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

On 07/12/2010 10:49 PM, Sune Vuorela wrote: > On 2010-07-12, Clint Adams wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:24:19PM +0300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: >>> I think it should be. Or the porters should monitor the builds on their >>> architecture to be able to detect FTBFS and act on them, without the >>

Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

On 2010-07-12, Clint Adams wrote: > On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:24:19PM +0300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: >> I think it should be. Or the porters should monitor the builds on their >> architecture to be able to detect FTBFS and act on them, without the >> maintainer having to manually ping them. > > If

Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:24:19PM +0300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > I think it should be. Or the porters should monitor the builds on their > architecture to be able to detect FTBFS and act on them, without the > maintainer having to manually ping them. If I were a porter, I would not bother doing t

Re: buildd/porter/maintainer roles again

On 12/07/10 at 18:05 +, Clint Adams wrote: > Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the buildd admin > (if, for some reason, the buildd admin is not a porter) > to notify an architecture's porters of any porting issues > manifesting themselves in a package build? I think it should be. Or the po