From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Helge Deller Subject: Re: hppa release status Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 23:44:55 +0200 Message-ID: <484EF5D7.5000209@gmx.de> References: <20080608194617.GT10194@mails.so.argh.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed To: Andreas Barth , debian-hppa@lists.debian.org, debian-release@lists.debian.org, carlos@systemhalted.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080608194617.GT10194@mails.so.argh.org> List-ID: List-Id: linux-parisc.vger.kernel.org CC'ed: parisc-linux kernel development list Andreas Barth wrote: > during the upload of python2.5, the build failed on hppa due to stalls > in the test suite, see http://bugs.debian.org/483042 and > http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?&pkg=python2.5&ver=2.5.2-5&arch=hppa&stamp=1211583145&file=log > (Matthias "fixed" that bug by disabling the testsuite, not something that makes > us happy.) > > After that happened, we asked on #parisc if someone could take a look, > and we were told that linuxthreads is currently unmaintained for hppa, > and the issue could only be fixed by moving to nptl and we need to do an > (incompatible) abi change in glibc. Such a change would be really > unfortunate, and we hope that every other roads have been evaluated > first (like trying to understand why python on linuxthreads fails on > hppa but not on e.g. kfreebsd). We also would like to be sure that ntpl > is really better than linuxthreads for python2.5 before a transition. My personal feeling is, that a switch to NPTL is probably the best solution. Even if this involves a abi change. Maybe experts on NPTL could comment here? > In addition to the python2.5 issue, there are two other issues that are > quite concerning: > * a problem with ruby1.9 which likely is kernel related #478717. Hmm.. > * dirmngr that segfaults, likely because of some signalstack issues > #459567. Yes, we need to implement makecontext()/getcontext() in glibc. > We've seen no porter activity on those bugs yet. I'd volunteer to try on thedirmngr/makecontext() issue. (At least as far as my time permits). > On further discussing that within the release team, we noticed that the > Qualification page on http://wiki.debian.org/hppaLennyReleaseRecertification > is not really complete, e.g. it says: > | The installer is being maintained by ... and it's currently working > | effectively. Successful installation reports are available at: ... > > It would really be great (read: it is necessary) that the Qualification > Page is filled with the missing information, and that we actually have > enough porters for hppa. I've added myself there in a few items. I'd be willing to look into issues with the installer, but not being a active debian developer I'd need help from a debian guy if necessary. > So, with respect to the python2.5 issue, what now? > > > At the technical side, best of course would be if linuxthreads would > continue to work at least enough for lenny, this was the case for a few > years already, it should be able to survive a few months more, and > python2.5 can build with the test-suite on hppa. Of course not breaking > the API during a linuxthreads -> NPTL switch would be even better. I can't comment on that. > If really you see no other option than switching to NPTL, even at the > current unfortunate moment, the only way how this could be done in a > timely fashion would be to exempt hppa from the list of architectures > our testing migration scripts look at for updateness and non-breakness. > Then upload glibc ASAP, and schedule an archive-wide binNMU campaign. > > Of course, this demands enough buildd power, and wanna-build access by > (some of) the porters (or whatever else you consider appropriate). > Moreover it needs quite a lot of time to track that closely, which the > Release Team probably won't have on its own, so we will need hppa > buildd-admin and hppa porters time, a lot. > > After the transition is done (and we can only hope it is in time for > lenny), hppa could be added back to the normal architectures. Downside > of this is of course that in case hppa is slower than lenny, lenny would > be released without hppa. which would be sad... > Of course, we also need plans for the ruby and dirmngr issues. Yes. > So, after that long mail, what's your take on this? How do we continue? Any other comments? Helge