Re: open issues with the hppa port
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Andreas Barth<firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> * Carlos O'Donell (email@example.com) [090819 14:56]:
>> I didn't know vlc, xmms2, and xmp were not building. I'll add them to
>> my list and look over the failures. I don't know how to get visibility
>> into what's failing for hppa.
> Basically, by e.g. checking the testing excuse page which packages
> don't have an upload after e.g. 4 days (and where hppa is the only one
> or one of only two, not counting *bsd* for the moment, and mips* is
> only one architecture for that). And/or by access to wanna-build. (All
> of that can of course be automated, and if you need help to set
> something up, we could of course do that together.)
OK, this will need to be setup. I'll contact you in early September.
Until I set this up, I will rely on package maintainers to contact
>> I believed the role of the porter was to cater to the package
>> maintainers when something failed on the porters architecture.
> That too. I consider the responsibility of "packages compile on all
> architectures" be shared between maintainers and porters.
I agree about the shared responsibility. However, with busy porters I
expect the package maintainer to reach out, instead of waiting for
porters to become pro-active. The best case scenario is a pro-active
porter (some day soon).
> I know that there will always be cases where "default handling"
> doesn't work, but I would wish that most cases work without someone
> from the release team intervening (one reason because we see such
> issues usually quite late, when we really *need* the package for a
> transition). If a package only FTBFS on one or two architectures, it
> mostly hints to a problem specific to the buildd or architecture.
Yes, I agree again, and we're struggling up hill to get everything
back on track for hppa.
>> I strongly suggest any other package build problems should be brought
>> to debian-hppa.
> No doubt that that's usefull.