Debian Bug report logs - #677626
ceph - Unwarranted restriction of architectures

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: ceph - Unwarranted restriction of architectures

Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 15:33:56 +0200

Package: ceph
Version: 0.47.2-1
Severity: serious

The ceph upload in NEW tells:
| * Limit archs to build on as leveldb dependency doesn't support all.

The leveldb package is clearly not restricted to specific architectures,
so this is not allowed.

Bastian

-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

Message #10 received at 677626@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS)" <gcs@debian.hu>

To: Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org>, 677626@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Alessio Treglia <alessio@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#677626: ceph - Unwarranted restriction of architectures

Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 19:16:21 +0000

Hi Bastian, Alessio,

On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 15:33 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> The ceph upload in NEW tells:
> | * Limit archs to build on as leveldb dependency doesn't support all.
> The leveldb package is clearly not restricted to specific architectures,
> so this is not allowed.
 While I agree with this, I don't see the point how leveldb and ceph
will migrate to testing. In my opinion, leveldb should be limited to
architectures that it builds on. Do the porting in the background and
enable others when they are ready. If I upload ceph and it can't be
built because of leveldb doesn't support that particular architecture,
then the effect is similar. I just put a job on buildds that it won't
even start.

In short, what's the leveldb plans for Wheezy? Will it build on all
archs?

Regards,
Laszlo/GCS

Message #15 received at 677626@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org>

To: "Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS)" <gcs@debian.hu>

Cc: 677626@bugs.debian.org, Alessio Treglia <alessio@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#677626: ceph - Unwarranted restriction of architectures

Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:12:21 +0200

On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 07:16:21PM +0000, Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 15:33 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > The ceph upload in NEW tells:
> > | * Limit archs to build on as leveldb dependency doesn't support all.
> > The leveldb package is clearly not restricted to specific architectures,
> > so this is not allowed.
>  While I agree with this, I don't see the point how leveldb and ceph
> will migrate to testing.

Not sure what you want to tell me.

>                          In my opinion, leveldb should be limited to
> architectures that it builds on.

Right now it is supposed to build on any arch. With #677645 in the way
it does.

Bastian

-- 
Without freedom of choice there is no creativity.
		-- Kirk, "The return of the Archons", stardate 3157.4

Message #20 received at 677626@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Alessio Treglia <alessio@debian.org>

To: "Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS)" <gcs@debian.hu>

Cc: Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org>, 677626@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#677626: ceph - Unwarranted restriction of architectures

Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 18:43:02 +0200

Hello everybody,

and sorry for the late reply.

On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) <gcs@debian.hu> wrote:
> In short, what's the leveldb plans for Wheezy? Will it build on all
> archs?

I'm going to test leveldb on powerpc and then I'll report my results
to upstream.
Hence I cannot promise it will be ready in time for Wheezy, of course
I'll upload a patch as soon as a fix becomes available.

See you soon,

-- 
Alessio Treglia          | www.alessiotreglia.com
Debian Developer         | alessio@debian.org
Ubuntu Core Developer    | quadrispro@ubuntu.com
0416 0004 A827 6E40 BB98 90FB E8A4 8AE5 311D 765A

Message #25 received at 677626@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>

To: "Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS)" <gcs@debian.hu>, 677626@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org>, Alessio Treglia <alessio@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#677626: ceph - Unwarranted restriction of architectures

Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 21:33:30 +0100

On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 19:16 +0000, Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 15:33 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > The ceph upload in NEW tells:
> > | * Limit archs to build on as leveldb dependency doesn't support all.
> > The leveldb package is clearly not restricted to specific architectures,
> > so this is not allowed.
>  While I agree with this, I don't see the point how leveldb and ceph
> will migrate to testing.

The same way they always have?  The requirement is that the package is
up to date _on the architectures on which it has previously built_.
Failure to build on architectures on which the package has never built
is irrelevant.

> In my opinion, leveldb should be limited to
> architectures that it builds on. Do the porting in the background and
> enable others when they are ready. If I upload ceph and it can't be
> built because of leveldb doesn't support that particular architecture,
> then the effect is similar. I just put a job on buildds that it won't
> even start.

They're really not the same.

With both packages set to "arch:any", ceph will indeed not build on any
architecture where leveldb isn't available - that's presumably already
the case though.  This doesn't put any load on the buildds, as ceph will
be marked as "BD-Uninstallable" on those architectures and not be
available for a buildd to pick up.

The difference comes when a future upload of leveldb (or a fix in one of
its dependencies, or the toolchain, or the phase of the moon) means that
it manages to build on a new architecture.  With your solution, this
requires a new upload of ceph in order to add the new architecture; with
the package as arch:any, ceph automagically gets a build attempt on the
new architecture with no intervention from anyone as the buildd software
will notice that leveldb is now available.

Regards,

Adam

Message #30 received at 677626@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>

To: "Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS)" <gcs@debian.hu>

Cc: 677626@bugs.debian.org, Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org>, Alessio Treglia <alessio@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#677626: ceph - Unwarranted restriction of architectures

Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 21:42:16 +0100

On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 21:33 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 19:16 +0000, Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 15:33 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > > The ceph upload in NEW tells:
> > > | * Limit archs to build on as leveldb dependency doesn't support all.
> > > The leveldb package is clearly not restricted to specific architectures,
> > > so this is not allowed.
> >  While I agree with this, I don't see the point how leveldb and ceph
> > will migrate to testing.
> 
> The same way they always have?  The requirement is that the package is
> up to date _on the architectures on which it has previously built_.
> Failure to build on architectures on which the package has never built
> is irrelevant.

(Having hit send a little too soon) Note that whether you use an
explicit architecture list or "any", if the new set of architectures on
which ceph builds drops support for some architectures then you'll need
to ask ftp-master to remove the old binaries from unstable before the
package can migrate.  Making the package "arch:any" doesn't introduce
the obstacle to migration, the restriction to a particular set of
architectures (either explicitly or implicitly due to using an unported
build-dependency) does.

I assume from your comment that you're expecting that an explicitly
architecture-restricted ceph would be eligible for testing migration
with no further intervention; that's not the case, as detailed above.

> > In my opinion, leveldb should be limited to
> > architectures that it builds on. Do the porting in the background and
> > enable others when they are ready. If I upload ceph and it can't be
> > built because of leveldb doesn't support that particular architecture,
> > then the effect is similar. I just put a job on buildds that it won't
> > even start.
> 
> They're really not the same.
> 
> With both packages set to "arch:any", ceph will indeed not build on any
> architecture where leveldb isn't available - that's presumably already
> the case though.  This doesn't put any load on the buildds, as ceph will
> be marked as "BD-Uninstallable" on those architectures and not be
> available for a buildd to pick up.
> 
> The difference comes when a future upload of leveldb (or a fix in one of
> its dependencies, or the toolchain, or the phase of the moon) means that
> it manages to build on a new architecture.  With your solution, this
> requires a new upload of ceph in order to add the new architecture; with
> the package as arch:any, ceph automagically gets a build attempt on the
> new architecture with no intervention from anyone as the buildd software
> will notice that leveldb is now available.

Regards,

Adam

Message #35 received at 677626@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>

To: Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org>, 677626@bugs.debian.org

Cc: qemu@packages.debian.org, qemu-kvm@packages.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#677626: ceph - Unwarranted restriction of architectures

Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:40:10 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 15:33:56 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:

> Package: ceph
> Version: 0.47.2-1
> Severity: serious
> 
> The ceph upload in NEW tells:
> | * Limit archs to build on as leveldb dependency doesn't support all.
> 
> The leveldb package is clearly not restricted to specific architectures,
> so this is not allowed.
> 
Unless this gets fixed we'll have to remove ceph from wheezy.  Which
means qemu and qemu-kvm need to drop their build-deps on ceph packages.
They can always be re-added if/when leveldb/ceph are fixed.  Cc:ing the
qemu/qemu-kvm maintainers.

Cheers,
Julien

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #40 received at 677626-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS)" <gcs@debian.hu>

To: 677626-done@bugs.debian.org, Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org>, Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>

Cc: "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>, Alessio Treglia <alessio@debian.org>, qemu-kvm@packages.debian.org, qemu@packages.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#677626: ceph - Unwarranted restriction of architectures

Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 18:23:07 +0000

On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 16:12 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 07:16:21PM +0000, Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 15:33 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> >                          In my opinion, leveldb should be limited to
> > architectures that it builds on.
> 
> Right now it is supposed to build on any arch. With #677645 in the way
> it does.
 Sure, but it seems to be remain for Wheezy. No answer from upstream for
ten days now[2]. What I see ATM is that leveldb doesn't build on all
release architectures.

On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 21:33 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 19:16 +0000, Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 15:33 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> >  While I agree with this, I don't see the point how leveldb and ceph
> > will migrate to testing.
> 
> The same way they always have?  The requirement is that the package is
> up to date _on the architectures on which it has previously built_.
> Failure to build on architectures on which the package has never built
> is irrelevant.
 This is right, but Ceph was built on all architectures before. Then
upstream added leveldb dependency and now Ceph can't be built
everywhere.

On Sat, 2012-06-30 at 19:40 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> Unless this gets fixed we'll have to remove ceph from wheezy.  Which
> means qemu and qemu-kvm need to drop their build-deps on ceph packages.
> They can always be re-added if/when leveldb/ceph are fixed.  Cc:ing the
> qemu/qemu-kvm maintainers.
 It was fixed before accepted from the NEW queue. Built on all
architectures where leveldb is built[1], except ia64. Closing this bug
now.

Julien, may you ask inside Google what's the status of #677645 [2]?

Regards,
Laszlo/GCS
[1] https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=ceph
[2] http://code.google.com/p/leveldb/issues/detail?id=84

Message #45 received at 677626@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>

To: "Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS)" <gcs@debian.hu>

Cc: 677626@bugs.debian.org, Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org>, "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>, Alessio Treglia <alessio@debian.org>, qemu-kvm@packages.debian.org, qemu@packages.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#677626: ceph - Unwarranted restriction of architectures

Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 20:34:49 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 18:23:07 +0000, Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) wrote:

>  It was fixed before accepted from the NEW queue. Built on all
> architectures where leveldb is built[1], except ia64. Closing this bug
> now.
> 
It's not fixed as long as it's not built on *all* archs.

> Julien, may you ask inside Google what's the status of #677645 [2]?
> 
How would I do that?  You know as much as I do.

Cheers,
Julien

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.