Re: Bug#1072650: src:quantlib-swig: fails to migrate to testing for too long: FTBFS on armel, armhf, i386 and riscv64
Hi Paul,
Thanks for the prompt and detailed reply.
On 16 June 2024 at 16:13, Paul Gevers wrote:
| Hi Dirk,
|
| On 16-06-2024 2:42 p.m., Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > I may need a hgand with riscv64.
|
| That's normally a question to the porters, in CC now, so they can have a
| look.
|
| > The 1.34-1 revision needed some build
| > changes I had done poorly in such a way that the -O0 no longer applied to
| > some arches, this has been fixed in 1.34-2 so armel, armhf, i386 are good.
| > But riskv64 still times out.
|
| Ack.
|
| > Can we expand the build-time window from the
| > (arguably already large) value?
|
| Not that I know of.
|
| > Or can we (worst case) turn riskv64 builds
| > off?
|
| That's up to you as a maintainer, but this should be last resort [1].
| Don't forget to request for removal of the existing riscv64 binaries if
| you go this route. Please be aware of [2] if you aren't already.
True true, and I think I had to pull this 'safety value' once or twice before
with challenging / large package. I will re-read [1] and [2] and ponder.
riscv64 porters: I would of course also love to hear if you can offer any
advice. The package is a tricky one as it contains (a lot of) heavily
templated C++ code that is autogenerated via Swig for these Python
bindings. The compilation of that one file is tricky.
Best, Dirk
| Paul
|
| [1] https://release.debian.org/testing/rc_policy.txt : Packages must be
| supported on as many architectures as is *reasonably* possible.
| (Emphasis mine).
| [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/09/msg00105.html
| [DELETED ATTACHMENT OpenPGP_signature.asc, application/pgp-signature]
--
dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | edd@debian.org
Reply to: