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

Re: hppa in lenny? (Was: Freeze exceptions related to libdb-ruby)

On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:14:01PM +0000, Helge Deller wrote:
> Adeodato Simó wrote:
> >hppa has certainly had trouble during this release cycle. However, it's
> >been mostly reduced to a small set of packages, and since (a) it has not
> >been the kind of brekage that prevents the release team from doing their
> >job (alpha buildd outages eg. have been more painful), and (b) the
> >architecture is not generally broken, it was decided not to use /our/
> >veto power to kick it out of lenny. (No decision taken for lenny+1 in
> >either direction, though.)
> >I realize the ruby1.9 situation is frustrating, but I don't think it's
> >fair to drop hppa from lenny because of it. I don't think your "it's
> >unlikely to be a 'good' stable arch" is true either.
> >Otoh, it's really commendable, and I mean it, that you decided to spend
> >your time towards having it fixed, rather than just kill ruby1.9 on hppa
> >as I suggested (which is, tbh, what I would've done in your position).
> >It really sucks that no hppa person is available to help, but my opinion
> >is that's still more valuable to release with hppa without ruby1.9 
> >there,
> >than to drop hppa completely.
> >So, what I would like from a release POV is to wait at most for this
> >glibc -14 upload with context-fu on hppa that somebody somewhere said
> >could fix the issue, 
> I just looked into ruby19 on hppa.
> The makecontext()/setcontext()/switchcontext() functions which went into 
> libc-ports recently [*2] will not help here.

  Clearly not, Adeodato was confused, this would fix the dirmngr issue,
not ruby's.

> Instead, I think only when at some point the glibc on hppa switches to 
> NPTL, ruby could work.

  This is probably not going to happen, and there are two things:
  (1) linuxthreads is mostly pure C, and ruby works fine on kfreebsd
      that uses linuxthreads ;
  (2) it produces unkillable processes which points to a kernel bug, and
      switching to NPTL wont't fix that kernel bug that is very likely
      to be used as a local DOS, and needs to be addressed either way.

·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

Attachment: pgpkDIAoDXciL.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: