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

Re: Sparc buildd queue - what you can do to help



On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Blars Blarson wrote:

Bug 340835 is causing several packages to fail to build, including gcc.
(and everything else that builds a 64-bit sparc binary.)

Other than fixing such bugs, there's not much a Debian Developer who
isn't part of the buildd team can do about the situation.  I'm already
filing the ftbfs bugs.  Only someone with access to the buildd queues
can manipulate them to put packages in dep-wait, failed (with bug
number), back into needs-build, to not-for-us, etc.

I disagree. There are a few easily identifiable categories of bugs there, which have nothing to do with buildd administration and may be worked on by virtually anybody:

1. Bugs appearing as "Bus error" on sparc. A lot of these bugs are probably due to alignment issues, as unaligned memory accesses lead to bus error on sparc.

2. Failures where sparc is not one of the supported architectures. As explained by Steve Langasek, the etch release policy states that the package must support as many architectures as possible. Therefore, all packages which do not list sparc as a supported arch need to be examined to understand why that's the case. Is the application is easily portable and may be useful on sparc, or is there some fundamental reason why it cannot be ported? In the latter case this should be reported to the Packages-arch-specific maintainer, so that buildd does not attempt the builds.

3. Finally, there are "normal" bugs, affecting all or most architectures.
These are the obvious target, since automatic requeueing of such packages will just waste buildd time. Unfortunately, some packages are so buggy that the easiest way is to probably just remove them from the archive, in which case this has to be coordinated with release and ftp team.

Best regards,

Jurij Smakov                                        jurij@wooyd.org
Key: http://www.wooyd.org/pgpkey/                   KeyID: C99E03CC



Reply to: