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

RE: debian riscv64 stable build question

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org>
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2022 3:33 PM
> To: Tienhock Loh <tienhock.loh@starfivetech.com>; debian-
> riscv@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: debian riscv64 stable build question
> Apologies for the very long mail, hopefully just enough detail below. 

Thanks for taking the time to help me out.
Some further questions inlined.

> 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:
> https://dsa.debian.org/ports/hardware-requirements/
> and the port itself meets the ftp-master archive requirements;
> https://ftp-master.debian.org/archive-criteria.html
> 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.[] 

Who is considered the team? Anyway I can get myself into the team?

> https://wiki.debian.org/ArchiveQualification/riscv64
> https://wiki.debian.org/RISC-V
> https://wiki.debian.org/Ports/riscv64 ;(doesn't exist yet)
> The archive admins will review this request and respond.[] 

I see.

> Enough of the packages from the unofficial port of Debian unstable to be
> able to create buildds will be imported to the official port.
Are there any criteria that I can check?

> Hardware for the buildds will be delivered to Debian hosting locations.
> The buildds for the official port will be setup using those packages.

So the unofficial ports will be like a bootstrapping for official ports. The unofficial ports will run on RISC-V board as buildd server. Understood.

> 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.

I see.

> 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.
> https://wiki.debian.org/Ports
> Once the rebuild is complete, then the port can proceed to qualifying for
> inclusion in the bookworm release.
> https://release.debian.org/testing/arch_policy.html
> https://release.debian.org/testing/arch_qualify.html
> > 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.
> https://wiki.debian.org/RISC-V#buildd_.28build-daemon.29_information
> There are no porterboxes according to this:
> https://wiki.debian.org/RISC-V#Porterboxes

Oh, I must've mistaken arm64 for riscv64. Silly :(

> See this page for how to setup an unofficial porterbox:
> https://wiki.debian.org/PortsDocs/BuilddPorterboxSetup
Ok noted, let's see if we can get something up. 
> > So the next step is to ensure that packages builds are passing.
> The "Unofficial port" section of the new port docs links these:
> https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/ftbfs.cgi?arch=riscv64
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/architecture.php?a=riscv64&suite=sid
> > 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.

Noted, let me see if I need to do the exercise or should just jump into helping to fix build issues with packages.

I see, promotion from unstable -> stable will happen, and referring to https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/ftbfs.cgi?arch=riscv64&release=bookworm, the bookworm is the current unstable, and will promote to stable when time comes. If RISC-V builds managed to pass the above-mentioned criteria, then it archives will be copied into stable and can be used. I see some folks are already helping out to fix firefox, libreoffice, etc. in the mailing list, I think my question here would be the criteria to get it into stable, so that the community can start focusing on the packages that is crucial I guess?

> > 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.

I see, noted
> https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DSA/RTUsage
> https://wiki.debian.org/rt.debian.org

Thank you very much Paul!

> --
> bye,
> pabs
> https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Reply to: