Re: Getting the buildds to notice new architectures in a package
On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 06:31:56PM +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <email@example.com> writes:
> > On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 10:55:32PM +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> >> Where should I ask for help? Neither buildd.debian.org nor
> >> www.debian.org/devel/buildd, mention where the buildd admins can be
> >> reached; and lists.debian.org does not have a "buildd@" list.
> > <$firstname.lastname@example.org>. I just committed a change to the
> > wanna-build-states page to that effect.
> Thanks; I was aware of these, but the problem was not with any one
> architecture in particular; it was with Packages-arch-specific.
There is a large overlap between the maintainers of
packages-arch-specific and the buildd maintainers. This is only normal,
since p-a-s exists only to the benefit of buildd...
> Luk Claes pointed me to it, and I've submitted a request to the
> admins. (BTW, thanks, Luk.)
> It would perhaps be a good idea to mention the existence of
> Package-arch-specific, how it works, and who admins it on the
> buildd.debian.org front page, don't you think?
No. Buildd.debian.org is an interface which shows build logs to
non-buildd people (us buildd maintainers get relevant logs in our
mailboxes around the time they appear on buildd.d.o anyway). It is not
the place where buildd is documented, nor should it be; there are other
places for that.
(it *might* be a good idea for buildd.d.o to point to the relevant
documentation, but you need to talk to Ryan Murray to get that :-)
> Also, I would propose that a list, email@example.com, or even better, a
> pseudo-package, buildd, be created for such issues. buildd would
> complement ftp.debian.org as a central place for buildd-related
This has been proposed before.
It would only work if buildd maintainers agree to use it. Personally, I
feel that a generic "buildd" list for "all" architectures is a bit over
the top (there is rarely ever need for that, it would probably only be
abused (intentionally or otherwise) by people who don't need to contact
all buildd maintainers anyway).
> >> I will upload ~20 source packages in the next few weeks, adding
> >> support for more architectures to each package. So I'm really looking
> >> for a general solution and not one that only applies to asis.
> > There is no such general solution. See
> > <http://www.debian.org/devel/buildd/wanna-build-states#not-for-us>
> Thanks. I had already read that. It says:
> ! A package in not-for-us or packages-arch-specific will not leave
> ! this state automatically; if your package specifically excluded a
> ! given architecture in its control file previously, but now includes
> ! more architectures, it must be manually requeued".
> But it does not say how I should go about "reque manually".
Yes, that's the change I have just committed ($arch@). Some
architectures do still use not-for-us rather than p-a-s. It's better to
use the latter (since it isn't arch-speicific), but if hasn't been used,
then it doesn't help to contact a p-a-s maintainer, since he may not be
able to get the package in the needs-build state.
That's why I suggeted contacting the relevant buildd maintainer.
Fun will now commence
-- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4