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

Bug#918750: transition: simbody



Thanks Emilio. I've disabled the timing out tests by now and upload the -6 revision of the package. Seems to finish ok on mips:
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=simbody&arch=mips&ver=3.6.1%2Bdfsg-6&stamp=1547493371&raw=0


On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 7:54 PM Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org> wrote:
On 12/01/2019 21:13, Jose Luis Rivero wrote:
> simbody 3.6.1+dfsg-5 has been uploaded to unstable.

It is failing on mips as some tests are timing out.

https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=simbody

Cheers,
Emilio

>
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 3:30 PM Jose Luis Rivero <jrivero@openrobotics.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Emilio:
>>
>> There were a couple of patches: one to fix the architecture detection
>> which fixed most of the BSD and ppc friends. The other, as you said, is not
>> properly a patch but it tries to workaround about problems (most of them on
>> i386) that I'm unable to diagnostic and will require my interaction with
>> upstream. Note that i386 is still failing so the workaround does not change
>> too much the status of the ports. I agree with your conclusions, the change
>> improves current situation in sid but the whole thing needs more work.
>>
>> With respect to gazebo, I launched ratt against this new version and seems
>> to be happy:
>>
>> https://build.osrfoundation.org/job/debian-ratt-builder/19/consoleFull#console-section-8
>>
>> Thanks,
>>  Jose.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 1:58 PM Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Control: tags -1 confirmed
>>>
>>> On 10/01/2019 12:16, Jose Luis Rivero wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 10:11 AM Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <
>>> pochu@debian.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 09/01/2019 01:27, Jose Luis Rivero wrote:
>>>>>> Package: release.debian.org
>>>>>> Severity: normal
>>>>>> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
>>>>>> Usertags: transition
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear release team:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> simbody 3.6.1+dfsg-1 is now in experimental, we can start the
>>> transition
>>>>>> for the existing package in the archive currently using it.
>>>>>> The following source package need to be rebuild:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> gazebo 9.6.0-1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that in terms of 'ben' lingo, the transition has the following
>>>>>> parameters:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Affected: .depends ~
>>>>> /\b(libsimbody3\.6|libsimbody3\.5v5|libsimbody3\.5v5\-dbg)\b/
>>>>>>     Good: .depends ~ /\b(libsimbody3\.6)\b/
>>>>>>     Bad: .depends ~ /\b(libsimbody3\.5v5|libsimbody3\.5v5\-dbg)\b/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry for sending this close to the freeze but it will kill the 2 RC
>>>>> bugs pending on Simbody.
>>>>>> Please schedule binNMUs for gazebo packages on all architectures.
>>>>>
>>>>> simbody failed to build on several architectures:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=simbody&suite=experimental
>>>>>
>>>>> Please fix that before we consider starting the transition.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've upload simbody 3.6.1+dfsg-3 which:
>>>>  - fixed: all, mips, powerpc, powerpcspe, ppc64el, ppc64
>>>>  - waiting but probably fixed: mipsel, mips64el, kfreebad-amd64
>>>>  - still failing: i386, hurd-i386
>>>>
>>>> The build is failing on i368 (will require a bit more of work) but it is
>>>> already failing on unstable so there is a big gain on architectures
>>>> supported (+6 at least) and no regression as far as I can say.
>>> My concern here is that the way to fix the build on all those
>>> architectures was
>>> by ignoring the failing tests. If the test cases themselves are buggy then
>>> that's fine (though it'd be good to forward that upstream and get the
>>> tests
>>> fixed). However the tests may be failing due to bugs in the underlying
>>> library
>>> code, in which case ignoring them is not really a fix.
>>>
>>> In any case the situation in sid is bad too as you said and I imagine
>>> that the
>>> version in testing (which seems quite similar to the one in sid) would be
>>> affected by these build failure problems too, so I guess we should go
>>> ahead with
>>> this version.
>>>
>>> BTW I assumed that gazebo builds fine against this new simbody, is that
>>> right?
>>> If not, that is obviously a blocker. If it builds fine, then go ahead and
>>> look
>>> into the remaining build issues.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Emilio
>>>
>>
>


Reply to: