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

Re: Builds for hurd-i386 using debian-ports.org

On 04/20/2012 03:25 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Ansgar Burchardt, le Fri 20 Apr 2012 14:17:44 +0200, a écrit :
>>> If the Debian maintainers were more responsive to bug reports wrt
>>> GNU/Hurd the debian-ports archive would almost empty by now... 
>>> The problems are not only due to the porters. Currently there are 39
>>> bugs with patches, 5 forwarded and 6 pending upload, all with severity
>>> important in the BTS.
>> If maintainers do not react, couldn't you just go for NMUs instead of
>> uploading changes to debian-ports?
> I personally never felt sure enough to do an NMU for an arch that is not
> released yet.  But if NMUs are fine for that, then good.

I believe NMUs (to DELAYED) are the right way to proceed if the
maintainer does not react. Of course pinging the bug before shouldn't hurt.

>> As you plan to stop using debian-ports, can you estimate when this can
>> be done?
> That would require estimation of when e.g. pulseaudio will integrate our
> patches.

It looks like the fix for #573339 was already applied upstream.  If
there has been no new upstream release since then, they should be
backported to the current version in Debian (and uploaded).

In any case I believe you need to be more aggressive on getting the
needed patched in the official archive.  There is not much more time
before the freeze left.

Personally I also think that dropping -ports is actually more important
than increasing archive coverage right now as a release arch cannot
depend on the unofficial archive.  So I suggest to try dropping -ports
as soon as possible, start rebuilding packages, and work on pushing
patches to the main archive as required to rebuild all packages.

>> A first idea would be to note when you dropped debian-ports
>> from the buildds and then making sure all binaries uploaded before that
>> are rebuilt,
> That is what I intended to do.

Good. I'm willing to help by providing a list of packages uploaded
before changing the buildds using projectb.

>> but this misses at least arch:all packages.
> These are only the packages whose sources were uploaded from hurd-i386,
> right?  I believe there aren't many, just the hurdish ones.

Yes, these should only be a few packages, but they are not easily looked
up in projectb.


Reply to: