Hi,
On 2023-09-02 19:42, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> > On top of that, those two packages have already been rebuilt for
> > riscv64 (no binNMUs required there), whereas if we force another
> > upload only to solve this, we will trigger a build for every arch and
> > needlessly consume at the very least 77 hours of the riscv builders'
> > time (while we are still rebuilding the archive for riscv, delaying it
> > all).
> > https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=llvm-toolchain-14&arch=riscv64
> > https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=llvm-toolchain-15&arch=riscv64
> >
> > Do you think that's a sensible compromise?
> > I'm asking to proceed with binNMUs because eg25-manager has been fixed
> > in git already and the llvm packages are about to be removed (although
> > I want curl to migrate before that), also rebuilding them on riscv
> > takes a lot of effort at a not-so-great time (no binNMUs required for
> > riscv).
>
> Please get those uploaded instead. We will rebuild
> llvm-toolchain-{14,15} a bunch of times for transitions anyway. If
> riscv64 buildds are not ready to cope with that, the architecture is not
> ready to become a release architecture.
Please note that avoiding an upload on riscv64 is NOT a request from the
riscv64 porters. Despite the long building time, we believe that the
build daemons will be able to handle a rebuild of those packages. In
addition 2 more buildds are being prepared.
Regards
Aurelien
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurelien@aurel32.net http://aurel32.net
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature