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

Re: debian riscv64 stable build question

Apologies for the very long mail, hopefully just enough detail below.

On Thu, 2022-05-26 at 05:14 +0000, Tienhock Loh wrote:

> How does the architecture (not ports) move from unofficial to
> official? I don't see much information on this.

There is a bit of info about this in the archive criteria document, and
I haven't worked on any of this myself, but I think it goes like this:

Once there is hardware that meets DSA's requirements:


and the port itself meets the ftp-master archive requirements;


The riscv64 port team will file a request against ftp.debian.org (with
usertag arches) for inclusion of the port in the archive, linking to
the arch qualification page, which should link to other RISC-V pages.

https://wiki.debian.org/Ports/riscv64 ;(doesn't exist yet)

The archive admins will review this request and respond.

Enough of the packages from the unofficial port of Debian unstable to
be able to create buildds will be imported to the official port.

Hardware for the buildds will be delivered to Debian hosting locations.

The buildds for the official port will be setup using those packages.

The initially imported packages will be rebuilt, the rebuilds imported
to the official port & the buildds will be updated to those packages.

The rest of the archive will be rebuilt using the rebuilt packages.

The port team will resolve any circular builds using manual builds with
build profiles, the manual builds will be rebuilt etc. There is some
documentation about this bootstrapping work on the Ports wiki.


Once the rebuild is complete, then the port can proceed to qualifying
for inclusion in the bookworm release.


> From what I understand, there are buildd and porterbox machine
> deployed and fulfilled the hardware requirements correct?

As I understand it, some of the buildds for the unofficial port are
based on qemu on amd64 instead of RISC-V hardware, I think that is not
acceptable for an official port, so those would need replacing, I'm not
sure if they have been replaced entirely or not. I'm also not sure
where they are hosted, usually new ones are setup (or old ones moved)
for the official port in existing Debian hosting locations.


There are no porterboxes according to this:


See this page for how to setup an unofficial porterbox:


> So the next step is to ensure that packages builds are passing.

The "Unofficial port" section of the new port docs links these:



> Would it be possible and make sense to start a wanna-build server in
> our own company to start building stable or testing branch, deploy
> into an archive (not main archive), and run test internally in our
> company? Would this help to accelerate progress? The thought process
> is that if we can build the current stable/testing (bookworm or
> bullseye), we can see how many of the packages can be built using the
> stable/testing branch, and start testing?

I think if you followed the procedure Debian will use that I mention
above, then this seems like a useful exercise, but I think the priority
should be in solving build failures (links above) and checking that the
port is ready to meet the hardware/archive/release criteria.

Since the initial official port will be based on the unofficial port of
Debian unstable, definitely use unstable rather than stable/testing.

> From this page: https://release.debian.org/testing/arch_qualify.html,
> it looks like we'll need buildd-dsa for riscv64 as well correct?

Right, this will happen during the switch from unofficial to official
port, I think that as part of the process, enough hardware to rebuild
the port and keep up with builds of unstable will be delivered to
Debian hosting locations and setup by DSA, the unofficial buildds shut
down and the port rebuilt on the official buildds.

> What would be the process on this? I looked up on
> https://dsa.debian.org/ but not much information. I should be sending
> a mail to debian-admin@lists.debian.org for more information?

I'm not entirely sure, but I think that after the inclusion of riscv64
into the main archive is accepted, the riscv64 port team would file a
ticket with DSA in the request-tracker to discuss hosting and hardware
arrangements for the official riscv64 port.




Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: