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

Re: Porting gnupg2

What is the buildd for riscv64 currently running on? I'd like to replicate the gpg test failure and see what I can do to either make qemu run faster or get a native riscv board allocated for a buildd

On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:54 PM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Giovanni,

2018-06-15 22:37 GMT+02:00 Giovanni Mascellani <gio@debian.org>:
> Dear riscv64 porters,
> I do not have much porting experience, but discovering that an open
> source CPU might soon be actual and usable reality recently thrilled me
> quite a lot!
> I created a QEMU virtual machine as explained on the wiki to try it out.
> Since gnupg2 does not appear to build correctly at the moment, I tried
> to fix it, and discovered that the problem is actually easy: tests fail
> because running it in parallel on not very powerful machines makes them
> miss some timeout. The same already happens also for hppa, according to
> the debian/rules file. The simple attached patch fixes the problem.

That's an excellent finding, thanks!  And at least I didn't know the
cause of it.

We got to build this package but without tests due to this failure,
and it's not getting updated with the new uploads from the maintainers
because of it.

> Now, with all probability you already knew about this, but maybe not, so
> I thought I would be useful to write this email. I do not know much
> about porting procedures, but if I can be of any help, for example by
> filing this patch against the sid gnupg2 package, I can do it.

Yes, please do send the bug report.

If possible please annotate it with usertags, so all of them can be
tracked from a single location:

  User: debian-riscv@lists.debian.org
  Usertags: riscv64


There are many other problems pending to investigate, specially among
the "build-attempted" ones, almost 500 by now.  Just check if they are
reported in the page of the BTS for the (source) package, or here:


Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com>

Reply to: