Hi Paul,since a partial removal of exempi on s390x will have a ripple effect on our rdeps (e.g. GNOME), I will probably override dh_auto_test to ignore any failures on s390x to avoid unnecessary work for rdeps of src:exempi. I do not really like this situation though, so I'd very much appreciate if Dipak or any other s390x porter would look into this issue.
Regards, Michael Am 23.09.22 um 21:38 schrieb Paul Gevers:
Hi Dipak, On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 09:57:44 +0000 Dipak Zope1 <Dipak.Zope1@ibm.com> wrote:Apologies for late response. It looks like the issue is related to the synchronization between atop and atopacctd. I am looking into it further and will keep this thread updated.I think we established that you replied here but had the other bug in mind (in atop).I am looking forward to have a fix for this for s390x.Can you still look into the exempi issue in this bug report?On 30/08/22, 12:44 AM, "Paul Gevers" <elbrus@debian.org> wrote: Hi Michael On 29-08-2022 14:23, Michael Biebl wrote: > As you are probably aware, this issue is known and tracked in [1]. Which I added as a blocker and mentioned in my message, so yes. > The > package FTBFS after enabling the test suite. I raised this issue > upstream but there is no real interest/motivation [2] on their part to > address these (most likely endianess related) issues. > So I informed the s390x porters as well but got not feedback so far. Ack, I saw the latter part. > To me it seems it's better to not continue ship a known broken package> on s390x and think a partial architecture removal is probably the better> alternative. If you think the package indeed is severely broken, then removal sounds best. If its broken in some less common use cases, it may be OK to leave it for now (skipping those tests on 390x) and let the porters have a look when they have time. > Let me know what you think It all depends on how broken it is. If you would consider the bugs found by the tests RC, then removal is the better choice unless a porter steps up to fix it. If the bugs would be important at most, than skipping broken tests on s390x sounds like the better option. Removal bugs are hard to time predict. Paul PS: I would not disable building on s390x if you have the test suite finding out severe problems (as the d/control file doesn't have negated architecture fields yet). Just getting the binary removed and FTBFS will prevent the architecture from building again.Otherwise I think we need to go this route. Paul
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature