Re: hppa in lenny? (Was: Freeze exceptions related to libdb-ruby)
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 01:14:01AM +0200, Helge Deller wrote:
> Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
>> * Lucas Nussbaum [Sat, 16 Aug 2008 14:10:16 -0300]:
>>> ruby1.9 is broken on hppa: 18.104.22.168, that previously built fine (it's in
>>> the archive) exhibits the same problems as 22.214.171.124 and 126.96.36.199.
>>> I spent hours trying to do the hppa porters' work by investigating the
>>> ruby1.9 build failure, with no success (and no help from the hppa
>>> porters, except giving me access to an hppa machine, since hppa doesn't
>>> have any developer-accessible machine maintained by DSA).
>>> In , the state of hppa was already raised, and, while no real
>>> conclusion has been drawn from this thread, it seems that, while most
>>> people involved on hppa find it very sad (which I agree with), the right
>>> thing to do is to drop hppa from the list of official archs for lenny,
>>> since it's unlikely to be a "good" stable arch.
>>> So far, I haven't heard any official position from the release team
>>> about that,
>> 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.
> Instead, I think only when at some point the glibc on hppa switches to
> NPTL, ruby could work.
fyi, John Wright and I have had a buildd running w/ an NPTL glibc for
a while, and we're not having any better luck with ruby1.9 builds -
they seem to fail just as before ('miniruby' spinning indefinitely).
In general, I haven't noticed any better or worse behavior between
> [*2] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.glibc.cvs/25637
> > and if it persists, to kill ruby1.9 on hppa so that
>> we get that part of the archive on a releseable state.
> Probably the best idea, unless my hand-built (and partly buggy) ruby19
> binaries on http://gsyprf10.external.hp.com/~deller/ruby/ may help (see my
> other mail on the debian-hppa list).
>>>  http://lists.debian.org/debian-hppa/2008/07/msg00044.html
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact