On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 02:50:27PM -0600, Grant Grundler wrote: > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 08:25:31AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > ... > > > BTW, that firewall was reviewed and approved by Lamont (a pretty well > > > known DD and buildd maintainer). > > > > > > Thibaut Varene (who is a DD) has offered to host HPPA buildd machines > > > as well but hasn't heard any response to that offer either. > > > > (Stepping in ; I had some HPPA-related issues in one of my packages - > > ruby1.9 - so this is based on my experience with that problems) > > > > I think that your email summarizes the problem quite well: there are > > several people willing to offer buildd hosting, help after someone else > > has investigated the issues, etc. > > What debian-hppa currently lacks is someone that is willing to > > proactively detect issues (looking at packages that failed to build, for > > example), investigate them, and fix them. This can be done cooperating > > with the package maintainers, but the HPPA side should take the lead. > > Yup - this is definitely true. debian-hppa needed alot of prodding to > look at buildd failures. > > > The fact that HPPA people are asking the release team "what are the > > problems you are talking about?" clearly shows that this is broken: the > > HPPA people should be knowing more than the release team about HPPA > > issues. > > Generalizing one person's response (mine) to represent the group is wrong. > > However I agree the release team has no one who cares about HPPA involved. > And yes, it's up to the release team to track bugs and determine > the viability of a release based on outstanding bugs. > > As I said before, I'm ok with NOT having a "stable" HPPA release. > If someone disagrees, then they need to participate in the release > team and help debian-hppa focus on critical buildd failures. ie generate > the nag mail listing the HPPA-specific issues that need to be resolved. > > > > PS: if you want an HPPA-specific issue to play with, > > http://experimental.debian.net/fetch.php?&pkg=ruby1.9&ver=1.9.0.1-5&arch=hppa&stamp=1213563978&file=log&as=raw > > might be a good candidate. > > This did take a long time to resolve. Helge described the root cause > (ruby did not support LinuxThreads implementation correctly) and > resolution plan (migrate HPPA to NTPL). > > No phase of this problem sounds trivial to debug or resolve. > Based on this, I can argue the HPPA response is reasonable even > if is unsatisfactory and frustrating to you (as package maintainer). > > Do you have another HPPA specific issue? > Or maybe just remind the list how to find those issues? > (Teach a man to fish...) Are we still having random segfaults on paer? If so - that's be a good one to resolve. Not sure if DSA would be willing to grant (heh) you access to that box, or if we should try running a dummy buildd on another rp2470. -- dann frazier -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-parisc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
