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

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

Ansgar Burchardt, le Fri 20 Apr 2012 16:55:56 +0200, a écrit :
> 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.

Ok, pulseaudio was NMUed, and I have circumvented the issue with
gcc/binutils (#629866) in eglibc, which will be uploaded once the mips
issue is resolved, I guess.  In the meanwhile, that's the only package
that buildds need to fetch from debian-ports ATM.

> >> 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).

It's now in DELAYED/0, agreed by maintainer.

> In any case I believe you need to be more aggressive on getting the
> needed patched in the official archive.

Right.  I don't like stepping on other maintainers, but we'll probably
have to.

> >> 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.

Well, for now that would be "all" :)


Reply to: