Re: HPPA and Squeeze
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 02:50:27PM -0600, Grant Grundler wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 08:25:31AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > BTW, that firewall was reviewed and approved by Lamont (a pretty well
> > > known DD and buildd maintainer).
> > >
> > > Thibaut Varene (who is a DD) has offered to host HPPA buildd machines
> > > as well but hasn't heard any response to that offer either.
> > (Stepping in ; I had some HPPA-related issues in one of my packages -
> > ruby1.9 - so this is based on my experience with that problems)
> > I think that your email summarizes the problem quite well: there are
> > several people willing to offer buildd hosting, help after someone else
> > has investigated the issues, etc.
> > What debian-hppa currently lacks is someone that is willing to
> > proactively detect issues (looking at packages that failed to build, for
> > example), investigate them, and fix them. This can be done cooperating
> > with the package maintainers, but the HPPA side should take the lead.
> Yup - this is definitely true. debian-hppa needed alot of prodding to
> look at buildd failures.
> > The fact that HPPA people are asking the release team "what are the
> > problems you are talking about?" clearly shows that this is broken: the
> > HPPA people should be knowing more than the release team about HPPA
> > issues.
> Generalizing one person's response (mine) to represent the group is wrong.
> However I agree the release team has no one who cares about HPPA involved.
> And yes, it's up to the release team to track bugs and determine
> the viability of a release based on outstanding bugs.
> As I said before, I'm ok with NOT having a "stable" HPPA release.
> If someone disagrees, then they need to participate in the release
> team and help debian-hppa focus on critical buildd failures. ie generate
> the nag mail listing the HPPA-specific issues that need to be resolved.
> > PS: if you want an HPPA-specific issue to play with,
> > http://experimental.debian.net/fetch.php?&pkg=ruby1.9&ver=220.127.116.11-5&arch=hppa&stamp=1213563978&file=log&as=raw
> > might be a good candidate.
> This did take a long time to resolve. Helge described the root cause
> (ruby did not support LinuxThreads implementation correctly) and
> resolution plan (migrate HPPA to NTPL).
> No phase of this problem sounds trivial to debug or resolve.
> Based on this, I can argue the HPPA response is reasonable even
> if is unsatisfactory and frustrating to you (as package maintainer).
> Do you have another HPPA specific issue?
> Or maybe just remind the list how to find those issues?
> (Teach a man to fish...)
Are we still having random segfaults on paer? If so - that's be a good
one to resolve. Not sure if DSA would be willing to grant (heh) you
access to that box, or if we should try running a dummy buildd on