Re: Architecture qualification meeting for Wheezy
On 2012-04-20 22:32, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-04-06 at 12:44 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> Per discussions on #d-release, we have decided to postpone the meeting
>> till some time after Easter.
>
> It's now distinctly after Easter, and we need to look at rescheduling
> this.
>
> Do we want to start from looking at dates, or working out how much time
> we need for both the meeting and any pre-meeting prep so people can
> block out the right amount of time? Maybe both at once? :-)
>
> Regards,
>
> Adam
>
I originally wanted the length of the meeting to be an hour at most. I
had a draft agenda that I never got around to send out[1]. Looking back
at it now, I am not entirely sure if it is realistic (on IRC).
However, I would rather do two meetings of 45 minutes than one meeting
of 90 minutes. So I guess I would like to work out "How long do we
need?" (and "Does that fit in one or two meetings?") before looking at
dates.
As for meeting preps, I must admit that I found it rather difficult to
work out what needs to be prepared. I did manage to get some points
down (which are not on the "table"[2]):
* No imported packages (from -ports).
- s390x still have libproxy (according to projectb). I am told they
are working on it and presumbly this will be fixed before long.
- hurd-i386 /may/ have an issue here[3]
* Amount of RC bugs introduced by promoting an arch to release
candidate. We got too many RC bugs already now.
- For s390x and armhf we can probably get a reasonable estimate by
comparing their bug list with s390 and armel (respectively)[4]
plus looking at the build state stats for these architectures[5].
- I got less ideas for hurd-i386 where there are no "comparision"
arch.
Personally, I could probably also use a refresh on the status of some of
our architectures. Presumably, I/we could ask the porters for an
update, but I have to admit - I am not really sure what to ask for and
what to expect from them.
~Niels
[1] Old draft:
"""
This will be a one-hour meeting to debate the current state of all
architectures. A tentative agenda is attached. Each point has been
allocated a maximum time. Should we be unable to come to a conclusion
within that time, we will debate the issues per mail and (if needed)
follow up with a second meeting.
Agenda:
* Status of hurd (max 15 minutes)
- Hurd porters present
* Status of kfreebsd-{amd64,i386} (max 10 minutes)
- BSD porters present
* Status of armhf and s390x (max 10 minutes)
- Should we promote them to release architectures?
* Status of armel, ia64, mipsel, powerpc, sparc (max 10 minutes)
- Any improvements since last time? (yellow entries)
- Are these still "ok"?
* Status of amd64, i386, mips (max 5 minutes)
- Should be "all ok".
* Misc (max 10 minutes)
"""
[2] http://release.debian.org/wheezy/arch_qualify.html
[3]
http://raphaelhertzog.com/2012/04/19/people-behind-debian-samuel-thibault-working-on-accessibility-and-the-hurd/
"""
The Debian GNU/Hurd port can almost completely be installed from the
official mirrors, using the standard Debian Installer.
"""
Not sure if that means "we have imported packages" (which are not
showing up on my radar) or if it is "just" an installer issue (which
would be covered by the table).
[4] By "bug list" I mean the usertagged bugs for armhf and s390x. e.g.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=debian-s390@lists.debian.org;tag=s390x
Take all non-RC bugs on that list, and if its not on
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=debian-s390@lists.debian.org;tag=s390
then it will "possibly" be a new RC bug.
[5] Something like querying the buildd data base for "FTBFS" on armhf
that are in a "good" state for armel. This is a possibly unfiled FTBFS bug.
Reply to: