Re: Bug#266837: rpvm_0.6.2-1_hppa: FTBFS: relocation R_PARISC_DPREL21L can not be used when making a shared object; recompile with -fPIC
- To: debian-ctte@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Bug#266837: rpvm_0.6.2-1_hppa: FTBFS: relocation R_PARISC_DPREL21L can not be used when making a shared object; recompile with -fPIC
- From: Raul Miller <moth@debian.org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 21:48:12 -0400
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20041028214812.L13081@links.magenta.com>
- In-reply-to: <16712.6689.684745.234066@davenant.relativity.greenend.org.uk>; from ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk on Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 11:32:01AM +0100
- References: <20040819113837.GM4445@niquia.its.monash.edu.au> <20040819212608.GB480@sonny.eddelbuettel.com> <20040819213031.GB25905@uio.no> <20040819213749.GB711@sonny.eddelbuettel.com> <20040819215840.GF25905@uio.no> <20040820004052.GX4445@niquia.its.monash.edu.au> <20040819214024.A24350@links.magenta.com> <16711.18583.769768.365480@davenant.relativity.greenend.org.uk> <16712.6689.684745.234066@davenant.relativity.greenend.org.uk>
I vote in favor of this resolution.
--
Raul
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 11:32:01AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> (I accidentally failed to send my last message to the committee list.
> My apologies! Here is a slightly edited version, taking into account
> a correction from Steinar.)
>
> It looks like informal discussions aren't doing the job here. I
> hereby propose the resolution below. If anyone disagrees with any of
> the facts I claim are undisputed, or I seem to have missed something,
> then please let me know and I'll withdraw and amend it.
>
> It appears that everyone agrees on the following set of facts:
>
> 1. rpvm, an extension for integrating GNU R with PVM, uses a library
> libgpvm3 from pvm.
>
> 2. This library is currently in pvm's .deb only as a .a containing
> non-PIC code. This is a historical accident and not intended to
> be the permanent behaviour; it should be changed eventually.
>
> 3. R expects extensions to be shared libraries and rpvm should not be
> an exception to this.
>
> 4. On architectures other than i386 and ARM, shared libraries cannot
> contain non-PIC code.
>
> 5. For the reasons above, rpvm has never worked properly (upstream,
> or Debian) on architectures other than i386 and ARM.
>
> Disputed questions include:
>
> 6. Should pvm be changed to ship libgpvm3_pic.a or a suitable .so, for
> sarge, so that a working rpvm can be made available in sarge on
> all architectures ?
>
> 7. What should be done with the bug reports ?
>
> We note that:
>
> 8. While the Technical Committee is not the official arbiter of
> process questions such as the proper use of the bug system, we
> have been asked for our opinion and it would be helpful of us to
> give guideance.
>
> 9. It is not clear how difficult or risky the change would be to make
> pvm build a suitable library. It is difficult for the Committee
> to evaluate this, without a suitable patch to review.
>
> 10. The pvm maintainer is a volunteer is not obliged to do the
> technical work necessary to support rpvm.
>
> 11. Nothing in the release policy requires or forbid the relevant
> changes to pvm or rpvm at this stage of the release process.
>
> We therefore conclude that:
>
> 12. There are (perhaps) two distinct sets of changes required to fix
> this problem; the changes to pvm to supply a suitable library,
> and any changes to rpvm to make use of the new library. And, of
> course, there are two packages which have some kind of defect.
> Therefore it is not inappropriate for there to be two bug reports
> open.
>
> 13. Since rpvm has never been supported other than on i386 and ARM we
> believe that the current release policy would make the problem
> non-release-critical for rpvm. We believe the problem is
> non-release-critical for pvm.
>
> 14. As the maintainer of each package is a volunteer, they have the
> freedom to direct their effort as they see fit. Additionally it
> is proper for the maintainer to have a strong influence on the
> perceptions of other developers regarding the best use of effort
> spent on the package. The bug system severities provide a
> suitable way to manage this process. For non-release-critical
> bugs, the severity should therefore usually be assigned with free
> discretion by the maintainer.
>
> We therefore recommend that:
>
> 15. There should be two open bugs regarding this issue, as follows:
> #266837 against rpvm regarding the missing architectures, and
> #266762 against pvm regarding the missing library. These bugs
> should have whatever severity the respective package maintainer
> assigns from time to time.
>
> 16. If the rpvm maintainer is of the opinion that there is no change
> needed to rpvm to fix the problem - ie, that the problem will be
> fixed automatically when the missing library is provided by pvm -
> then the rpvm maintainer may, if they wish, close their bug or
> merge it with the pvm bug. During this process the severity
> settings of bug(s) against pvm should be retained, so that bugs
> against each package have the severity assigned by the maintainer
> of that package.
>
> 17. The rpvm maintainer should (if they see fit and are able) prepare
> a suitable patch to pvm to arrange for the supply of the
> necessary library. Such a patch should be reported to the pvm
> maintainer via the existing bug.
>
> 18. If such a patch is made available the pvm maintainer should
> evaluate its suitability for inclusion in sarge. If the pvm
> maintainer decides not to include the patch in sarge, or does not
> respond in a timely manner, then the Committee encourages the
> rpvm maintainer to bring the matter to our attention, and we will
> consider whether to overrule the maintainer and direct that the
> patch should be included in sarge.
>
> 19. We do not rule out alternative technical solutions which the rpvm
> maintainer may choose to implement. Nevertheless, no such
> solution entitles the rpvm maintainer to /mandate/ any change in
> pvm, or to fight with the pvm maintainer over the severities of
> pvm bugs.
>
> However:
>
> 19. The Committee's decisions here regarding the releasability of
> various packages are not to be construed as overruling or
> directing the Release Team.
>
> 20. The Committee's decisions here regarding the proper use of the
> bug system are not to be construed as overruling the BTS
> maintainers.
>
> 21. Therefore, if the Release Team or BTS maintainers disagree with
> the Committee's decisions here we encourage them to contact us
> immediately, and the Release Team's or BTS maintainers'
> instructions will stand during any subsequent discussion.
>
> Ian.
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: