Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   ArchLinux Development (http://www.linux-archive.org/archlinux-development/)
-   -   shell rebuilds (http://www.linux-archive.org/archlinux-development/7933-shell-rebuilds.html)

Eric Belanger 11-29-2007 01:46 AM

shell rebuilds
 
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Dan McGee wrote:

> Looking for a signoff for i686 for the following packages in testing:
>
> bash
> dash (new)
> hwdetect
> shadow
> filesystem
>
> Most of the updates deal with adding a new shell and a new provide
> (sh), and the update to shadow is to remove its dependency on
> coreutils which was one of our remaining circular dependencies.
>
> I'd appreciate it if someone wanted to rebuild these for x86_64- I
> wouldn't feel comfortable building a core package outside a chroot,
> which I currently do not have access to.
>
> -Dan
>

I'll build the x86_64 pkg.

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.


_______________________________________________
arch-dev-public mailing list
arch-dev-public@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public

"Dan McGee" 12-02-2007 06:56 PM

shell rebuilds
 
On Nov 28, 2007 8:46 PM, Eric Belanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Dan McGee wrote:
>
> > Looking for a signoff for i686 for the following packages in testing:
> >
> > bash
> > dash (new)
> > hwdetect
> > shadow
> > filesystem
> >
> > Most of the updates deal with adding a new shell and a new provide
> > (sh), and the update to shadow is to remove its dependency on
> > coreutils which was one of our remaining circular dependencies.
> >
> > I'd appreciate it if someone wanted to rebuild these for x86_64- I
> > wouldn't feel comfortable building a core package outside a chroot,
> > which I currently do not have access to.
>
> I'll build the x86_64 pkg.

Um...anyone? Otherwise I'm just going to assume they are fine by the
end of today.

-Dan

_______________________________________________
arch-dev-public mailing list
arch-dev-public@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public

"Travis Willard" 12-02-2007 07:51 PM

shell rebuilds
 
On Dec 2, 2007 2:56 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:

On Nov 28, 2007 8:46 PM, Eric Belanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Dan McGee wrote:
>
> > Looking for a signoff for i686 for the following packages in testing:

> >
> > bash
> > dash (new)
> > hwdetect
> > shadow
> > filesystem
> >
> > Most of the updates deal with adding a new shell and a new provide
> > (sh), and the update to shadow is to remove its dependency on

> > coreutils which was one of our remaining circular dependencies.
> >
> > I'd appreciate it if someone wanted to rebuild these for x86_64- I
> > wouldn't feel comfortable building a core package outside a chroot,

> > which I currently do not have access to.
>
> I'll build the x86_64 pkg.

Um...anyone? Otherwise I'm just going to assume they are fine by the
end of
today.h

That's not the way signoffs work.* You CAN'T just 'assume' they are fine.* You have to wait.* Sorry, but it breaks the whole system otherwise.

Signed off for i686 (bash, dash, shadow, hwdetect)


However, question about filesystem:
*$ pacman -Ql filesystem
filesystem /etc/arch-release
filesystem /etc/crypttab
filesystem /etc/fstab
filesystem /etc/group
filesystem /etc/gshadow
filesystem /etc/host.conf

filesystem /etc/hosts
filesystem /etc/issue
filesystem /etc/ld.so.conf
filesystem /etc/motd
filesystem /etc/nsswitch.conf
filesystem /etc/passwd
filesystem /etc/protocols
filesystem /etc/resolv.conf

filesystem /etc/securetty
filesystem /etc/services
filesystem /etc/shadow
filesystem /etc/shells

Isn't it supposed to have a bunch of empty directories in it too (for FHS compliance and such)?* Otherwise, signed off.


_______________________________________________
arch-dev-public mailing list
arch-dev-public@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public

Eric Belanger 12-02-2007 08:30 PM

shell rebuilds
 
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007, Travis Willard wrote:

> On Dec 2, 2007 2:56 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 28, 2007 8:46 PM, Eric Belanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Dan McGee wrote:
>>>
>>>> Looking for a signoff for i686 for the following packages in testing:
>>>>
>>>> bash
>>>> dash (new)
>>>> hwdetect
>>>> shadow
>>>> filesystem
>>>>
>>>> Most of the updates deal with adding a new shell and a new provide
>>>> (sh), and the update to shadow is to remove its dependency on
>>>> coreutils which was one of our remaining circular dependencies.
>>>>
>>>> I'd appreciate it if someone wanted to rebuild these for x86_64- I
>>>> wouldn't feel comfortable building a core package outside a chroot,
>>>> which I currently do not have access to.
>>>
>>> I'll build the x86_64 pkg.
>>
>> Um...anyone? Otherwise I'm just going to assume they are fine by the
>> end of today.h
>>
>
> That's not the way signoffs work. You CAN'T just 'assume' they are fine.
> You have to wait. Sorry, but it breaks the whole system otherwise.

Actually, these packages were already signed off by two devs: Dan for i686
and me for x86_64. From an IRC discussion with Aaron, the devs who put the
packages in testing counts as one of the two signoff. That might seem
strange but it's the way it works unless the signoffs gets a better
definition.

>
> Signed off for i686 (bash, dash, shadow, hwdetect)
>
> However, question about filesystem:
> $ pacman -Ql filesystem
> filesystem /etc/arch-release
> filesystem /etc/crypttab
> filesystem /etc/fstab
> filesystem /etc/group
> filesystem /etc/gshadow
> filesystem /etc/host.conf
> filesystem /etc/hosts
> filesystem /etc/issue
> filesystem /etc/ld.so.conf
> filesystem /etc/motd
> filesystem /etc/nsswitch.conf
> filesystem /etc/passwd
> filesystem /etc/protocols
> filesystem /etc/resolv.conf
> filesystem /etc/securetty
> filesystem /etc/services
> filesystem /etc/shadow
> filesystem /etc/shells
>
> Isn't it supposed to have a bunch of empty directories in it too (for FHS
> compliance and such)? Otherwise, signed off.
>
>

The empty directories are in the packages (run tar -tzvf on the
packages). 'pacman -Ql' doesn't list directories as they are not really
owned by any packages.

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.


_______________________________________________
arch-dev-public mailing list
arch-dev-public@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public

"Travis Willard" 12-02-2007 08:42 PM

shell rebuilds
 
On Dec 2, 2007 4:30 PM, Eric Belanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007, Travis Willard wrote:
> > That's not the way signoffs work. You CAN'T just 'assume' they are fine.
> > You have to wait. Sorry, but it breaks the whole system otherwise.
>
> Actually, these packages were already signed off by two devs: Dan for i686
> and me for x86_64. From an IRC discussion with Aaron, the devs who put the
> packages in testing counts as one of the two signoff. That might seem
> strange but it's the way it works unless the signoffs gets a better
> definition.

That doesn't seem sound to me. Recall the problem when the kernel
package that was uploaded had something screwy in it due to a bad
transfer. Under this situation, tpowa would have 'signed off' his own
upload, whoever built it for x86_64 would have signed it off for their
own upload, and then the buggy package i686 would have been pushed to
core.

If that's how we want our signoffs, then that's fine - I'm just
pointing out a possible flaw.

--
Travis

_______________________________________________
arch-dev-public mailing list
arch-dev-public@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public

Eric Belanger 12-02-2007 08:53 PM

shell rebuilds
 
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007, Travis Willard wrote:

> On Dec 2, 2007 4:30 PM, Eric Belanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007, Travis Willard wrote:
>>> That's not the way signoffs work. You CAN'T just 'assume' they are fine.
>>> You have to wait. Sorry, but it breaks the whole system otherwise.
>>
>> Actually, these packages were already signed off by two devs: Dan for i686
>> and me for x86_64. From an IRC discussion with Aaron, the devs who put the
>> packages in testing counts as one of the two signoff. That might seem
>> strange but it's the way it works unless the signoffs gets a better
>> definition.
>
> That doesn't seem sound to me. Recall the problem when the kernel
> package that was uploaded had something screwy in it due to a bad
> transfer. Under this situation, tpowa would have 'signed off' his own
> upload, whoever built it for x86_64 would have signed it off for their
> own upload, and then the buggy package i686 would have been pushed to
> core.
>
> If that's how we want our signoffs, then that's fine - I'm just
> pointing out a possible flaw.
>


I agree that the packager shouldn't count as a signoff. That how I
undertood it before the little discussion in IRC.

IMO, the way signoff should be done to prevent any potential screw up is
that 2 devs other than the packagers should signoff and that each
architecture should at least be signed off
once.

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.


_______________________________________________
arch-dev-public mailing list
arch-dev-public@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public

"Aaron Griffin" 12-02-2007 08:58 PM

shell rebuilds
 
On Dec 2, 2007 3:42 PM, Travis Willard <travis@archlinux.org> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2007 4:30 PM, Eric Belanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 2 Dec 2007, Travis Willard wrote:
> > > That's not the way signoffs work. You CAN'T just 'assume' they are fine.
> > > You have to wait. Sorry, but it breaks the whole system otherwise.
> >
> > Actually, these packages were already signed off by two devs: Dan for i686
> > and me for x86_64. From an IRC discussion with Aaron, the devs who put the
> > packages in testing counts as one of the two signoff. That might seem
> > strange but it's the way it works unless the signoffs gets a better
> > definition.
>
> That doesn't seem sound to me. Recall the problem when the kernel
> package that was uploaded had something screwy in it due to a bad
> transfer. Under this situation, tpowa would have 'signed off' his own
> upload, whoever built it for x86_64 would have signed it off for their
> own upload, and then the buggy package i686 would have been pushed to
> core.
>
> If that's how we want our signoffs, then that's fine - I'm just
> pointing out a possible flaw.

Hey, rather than continuing this discussion in a thread/venue it's not
meant to be in:

sign off i686

_______________________________________________
arch-dev-public mailing list
arch-dev-public@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch-dev-public


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:21 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.