[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Packages-arch-specific (was: Sparc build failure analysis)

On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 08:52:04AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:
> > On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 06:53:47AM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:

> >> Again: what can I do with such a list?  See the list below.

> > Changes to the P-a-s list should be sent to the contacts listed at the top
> > of this file (http://buildd.debian.org/quinn-diff/Packages-arch-specific).

> So I followed the instructions at the top of that file and requested a
> P-a-s entry, after asking people here what to do.  No response.  Hm.  I
> wasn't sure what to make of that -- maybe this request is too trivial to
> bother with, it's fine for the builds to fail, and I should just ignore
> it?  Or maybe my e-mail wasn't received?  Or maybe I misunderstood
> something and this was the wrong channel or the wrong thing to do?

Right, well, as noted, it's generally a fairly low priority to get packages
added to P-a-s -- even though it's an eventual goal, the waste just really
isn't so much (in the usual case) to warrant a rush job.  So from that
standpoint, as long as there is quite such the backlog on P-a-s that there
is (from what I can see), it seems like something maintainers should also
give a pretty low priority to.

Anyway, you could always try throwing this in Adam's direction as well now
that he's listed as a co-maintainer of the file.

> I waited a while (my saved mail says two months) and asked my AM about it.
> He said that mailing them again was probably the right thing to do.  So I
> went ahead and did that, providing the specific entry that I think should
> be used.  No response (that was in August).  However, I notice in the
> build report that m68k is now marking openafs as "not for us" (but the
> other arches aren't).  Is this because of my mail?  Because the buildd
> administrator noticed the error message?

That would be noticing the error message...

> This is a really minor issue in the grand scheme of things.  It's not RC,
> it doesn't break anything, it's really mostly cosmetic plus a minor
> resource waste.  Now I'm feeling kind of guilty about bothering clearly
> busy people with a trivial request, and I probably really shouldn't send
> this message to debian-devel either, since certainly it's not any kind of
> serious problem that this hasn't been done.

Eh, well, don't get all guilted up over it. :)

> Maybe the right thing to do would be to work out a way for package
> maintainers to provide input to their own P-a-s entries in some sort of
> automated fashion?  It does seem like a package maintainer is generally
> going to know this sort of thing, and I hate to bother busy buildd
> maintainers with this kind of thing if I could do it myself.

Well, except between the time you wrote this message and the time I'm
drafting a reply to it, I've filed/upgraded at least three bugs about
packages wrongly limiting themselves to Architecture: i386; and I'm sure
there are plenty more out there in the packages I haven't looked at yet.
Skills do vary among maintainers, and especially among novice maintainers
there's certainly a tendency to mark packages as arch-specific when they
shouldn't be.  If P-a-s were being updated automatically based on whatever
the maintainer thinks should be there, it would've been substantially harder
to find these bugs.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: