Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   Debian Development (http://www.linux-archive.org/debian-development/)
-   -   Conflicting information about buildd status and testing migration (http://www.linux-archive.org/debian-development/309711-conflicting-information-about-buildd-status-testing-migration.html)

Michael Hanke 01-15-2010 12:05 PM

Conflicting information about buildd status and testing migration
 
Hi,

I'm a little confused about a problem wrt testing migration of one of my
packages (fsl).

http://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=fsl says:

out of date on hppa: fsl (from 4.1.1-1)
out of date on mipsel: fsl (from 4.0.4-1)


and that is supported by the arch listing on

http://packages.debian.org/sid/fsl


However, looking at

https://buildd.debian.org/~luk/status/package.php?p=fsl

and

https://buildd.debian.org/pkg.cgi?pkg=fsl

I get the impression that the package was built fine for hppa and
mipsel too. But looking in the pool

http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free/f/fsl/

I cannot see hppa and mipsel packages for the latest version.

Unfortunately, the buildd logs for this non-free package that used to be
here:

http://experimental.debian.net/fetch.php?&pkg=fsl&ver=4.1.4-2&arch=hppa

are currently (or no longer) available.

I'd be glad for some hints what is happening here.



Thanks in advance,

Michael

--
GPG key: 1024D/3144BE0F Michael Hanke
http://mih.voxindeserto.de


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Michael Hanke 01-15-2010 02:12 PM

Conflicting information about buildd status and testing migration
 
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 02:14:18PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Michael Hanke <michael.hanke@gmail.com> (15/01/2010):
> > out of date on hppa: fsl (from 4.1.1-1)
> > out of date on mipsel: fsl (from 4.0.4-1)
> >
> >
> > and that is supported by the arch listing on
> >
> > http://packages.debian.org/sid/fsl
>
> “rmadison fsl” is usually how one checks for this.

Thanks. What I get from there is the same that I get from the website.

> > Unfortunately, the buildd logs for this non-free package that used
> > to be here:
> >
> > http://experimental.debian.net/fetch.php?&pkg=fsl&ver=4.1.4-2&arch=hppa
> >
> > are currently (or no longer) available.
> >
> > I'd be glad for some hints what is happening here.
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-wb-team/2010/01/msg00012.html

Hmm, so the buildds are working just the website is not available.

That puts me exactly where I started: Information from the buildds
suggests the package is built for all archs, the website and rmadison
say "no". I have no logs to check, hence I still have no clue.

What information is the output of

https://buildd.debian.org/pkg.cgi?pkg=fsl

based on? I guess it doesn't assume that packages are built properly be
default.


Michael


--
GPG key: 1024D/3144BE0F Michael Hanke
http://mih.voxindeserto.de


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Philipp Kern 01-15-2010 03:04 PM

Conflicting information about buildd status and testing migration
 
On 2010-01-15, Michael Hanke <michael.hanke@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hmm, so the buildds are working just the website is not available.
>
> That puts me exactly where I started: Information from the buildds
> suggests the package is built for all archs, the website and rmadison
> say "no". I have no logs to check, hence I still have no clue.
>
> What information is the output of
>
> https://buildd.debian.org/pkg.cgi?pkg=fsl
>
> based on? I guess it doesn't assume that packages are built properly be
> default.

Albeit buildd.debian.org gives some information due to some implementation
detail (contrib autobuilding relying on non-free information to be available
in the database), it is not to be trusted for non-free (yet). As ~luk/status
said it's "(not autobuilt)".

I agree that the page could be more informative, but it's due to the fact
that it looks at the source package and does not get the information that
it should build it. In the database you can query on cimarosa.debian.org
(if you're a DD) you will see that it says Installed-Version correctly:

pkern@cimarosa:~$ wb info fsl . hppa . -d unstable
* fsl/hppa
| fsl:
| Package : fsl
| Version : 4.1.4-2
| State : Installed
| Section : non-free/science
| Priority : optional
| Installed-Version : 4.1.1-1
| State-Change : 2008 Jan 10 15:33:32
| Distribution : unstable

So. To your original request:

pkern@kallimachos:~$ ~/release-tools/scripts/wb info fsl . hppa mipsel . -d unstable
* fsl/hppa
| fsl:
| Package : fsl
| Version : 4.1.4-2
| Builder : meitner
| State : Building
| Section : non-free/science
| Priority : optional
| Installed-Version : 4.1.1-1
| Previous-State : Needs-Build
| State-Change : 2009 Jun 06 23:18:05
| Notes : out-of-date
| Old-Failed :
| -------------------- 4.1.2-2 --------------------
| build-depends need adapting

* fsl/mipsel
| fsl:
| Package : fsl
| Version : 4.1.4-2
| State : Needs-Build
| Section : non-free/science
| Priority : optional
| Installed-Version : 4.0.4-1
| Previous-State : Building
| State-Change : 2009 Apr 29 19:38:03
| Notes : out-of-date

This suggests that it was tried on hppa tried long ago and failed. (Building
does only switch to something different depending on the buildd/sbuild version
in use.)

On mipsel it seems that there is currently no unofficial autobuilder, so
what I'd recommend you is to request a partial binary removal through
ftp.debian.org's bug list to get it dropped for hppa and mipsel.

Kind regards,
Philipp Kern


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Michael Hanke 01-15-2010 03:22 PM

Conflicting information about buildd status and testing migration
 
Hi,

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 04:04:49PM +0000, Philipp Kern wrote:
> I agree that the page could be more informative, but it's due to the fact
> that it looks at the source package and does not get the information that
> it should build it. In the database you can query on cimarosa.debian.org
> (if you're a DD) you will see that it says Installed-Version correctly:

That makes sense -- unfortunately I'm not a DD.

<snip>

> This suggests that it was tried on hppa tried long ago and failed. (Building
> does only switch to something different depending on the buildd/sbuild version
> in use.)
>
> On mipsel it seems that there is currently no unofficial autobuilder, so
> what I'd recommend you is to request a partial binary removal through
> ftp.debian.org's bug list to get it dropped for hppa and mipsel.

Ah, I see. Thanks a lot -- that made it clear.

Michael

--
GPG key: 1024D/3144BE0F Michael Hanke
http://mih.voxindeserto.de


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:35 AM.

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