Re: Status update
On Sat, Mar 17, 2001 at 06:56:31PM -0500, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > binutils: Crashes the Hurd mid-compile
>
> Is this a crash whose details have been reported?
Sort of, I reported it to bug-hurd, and you suggested that it's the proc
server dying. I haven't done the whole sub-hurd thing, because it takes
nearly an hour for it to die and today is the first day that I have been
home and awake more than an hour in awhile.
> > elvis-tiny: Needs termio.h, which libc6-dev provides but libc0.2-dev doesn't
>
> Anything that uses termio.h is usually very easy to convert to use the
> POSIX.1 termios.h interface instead, and that is a better thing to use on
> Linux as well.
Okay - Are maintainers typically willing to accept these changes?
> > If you're interested in helping me get some of these to compile, let me
> > know - I'd like to avoid duplication of effort (I cheerfully will let
> > other people do any of the work they want to!)
>
> Since you are building so many packages, it would be helpful if I could
> look at an automated web page that tells me the status of each package,
> and ideally lets me get the full output of the last build attempt.
I'll dig out Marcus' instructions on how to make turtle do this.
> > If there is are Debian packages that *compiles cleanly* that you want,
> > please let me know. I don't have the time to chase source bugs right
> > now, but if something is buildable, I will keep it up to date.
>
> It would be great to have something automated to try new packages, if that
> is not hard for you to do.
I have been slowly adding packages one by one. I'm starting with
anything that's been uploaded before.
> What I have in mind is something that simply
> attempts to build a package and records what happened. Then these would be
> automatically classified into "built" and "failed to build" (and maybe
> "built but with warnings" if you have some regex matching on the compile
> output); for things that support "make check" you could try that too and
> add another bit to the matrix in the output.
I would like to see 'make check' become a standard part of building debian
packages for those that support it. I think perl already does this - I
don't know of the best way to suggest this, however.
> For anything that builds
> successfully, then a human can take a quick look at the build log and see
> if it looks like it might really be usable, and then decide to actually try
> it out; when a human declares an autobuilt package is actually usable, it
> can be published.
Is the volunteer pool large enough to support this much work? I'd really
like to get us to the point where we could consider participating in
'testing'.
I also know that for many of the packages, I can't tell by simply running
it if it's functional or not. Libraries will be even worse.
> For anything that fails to build, then a human can take
> a quick look at the build log and with very little effort decide from the
> kinds of errors whether or not they want to make the attempt to fix it.
Makes sense.
> It would be ideal to have this kind of system processing a queue of all
> source packages in the debian pool as new or updated ones arrive.
> It could
> prioritize the queue,
<snip>
> If such a system is set up and does a little bit of extra
> coordination to farm out pieces of the work, then several of us can set up
> hurd machines that spend their spare time working on autobuilding while we
> sleep.
Yup - I have been talking to Marcus about exactly this kind of
delegation. I have 1 full-time Hurd system, and 2 other machines that
can be nighttime hurd boxes so I need this to coordinate between them anyway.
--
My UUism extends beyond national boundaries.
Reply to: