Hurd-i386 and kfreebsd-{i386,amd64} removal

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
47 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hurd-i386 and kfreebsd-{i386,amd64} removal

Svante Signell-2
On Sat, 2019-04-13 at 12:18 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>
> He rightfully means he does not want patches, but patches getting
> submitted upstream, so he does not have to maintain them. A Debian
> package maintainer is not supposed to maintain patches long-term.

Then the question of which responsibilities a package maintainer has
should be investigated by the CTTE. It is not reasonable that a porter
should submit patches to multiple upstreams (really many) when the
package maintainer is (and should be) the natural interface to a single
upstream...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hurd-i386 and kfreebsd-{i386,amd64} removal

Carsten Schoenert
In reply to this post by Samuel Thibault-8
Samuel,

Am 13.04.19 um 12:06 schrieb Samuel Thibault:
>> I can't follow that style of discussion.
>
> Please don't, Svante is only trolling here, please don't feed him.

yes, this is true. As you've answered in your other email, such emails
bringing no real gain or progress.

>> I haven't seen a broader supporting from the people who wanting these
>> architectures to stay in Debian on some important packages.
>
> I can only agree. I hear a lot of people saying that the Hurd port
> existing is a great thing, but a lot less people helping with it.
>
> (I do thank all the people who work on it without necessarily being
> noticed).
>
>> Both architectures haven't seen any major development in the past years
>
> They have.

O.k. need to be more specific, so the same as you mentioned further
down, ..."in the context of Debian, the packages of Debian and it releases".

> Patching software should be handled upstream indeed.

Yes, but most upstreams are a bit reserved especially if it's about Hurd
as they have no knowledge about (but I also don't) and fearing that
patches will break and complicate other things, kFreeBSD is a bit easier
or more accepted and known. But I here also see the porters to get also
in touch with upstream as I'm as the maintainer of a package not
necessarily have the knowledge to keep the specific architecture up to
date in the upstream project or simply have no time or interest on this.

>> So I disagree on "One person is enough"
>
> I meant only for the Debian-specific things, I am the only DD who
> currently uses its key for signing packages, making CD images, etc.
> That's what I meant by "the daily ports things".

Well, I guess it's not that easy I fear as there are no parts that can
be seen as separate standalone things, it's all connected in various ways.

As I've not written this in my previous email, so to state it now, I've
a big respect on your work on Hurd! But realistically it's not enough in
my eyes to keep Hurd on even tracking the normal evolving of Debian.

> For the non-Debian-specific things like patching packages, I am
> thankfully really not alone, and I completely agree it can't be a
> one-person thing.

Sometimes it's amazing to see with what people can came up with, and
gladly there are also porter people where I get patches for other ports
to keep packages building successful.

--
Regards
Carsten Schoenert

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hurd-i386 and kfreebsd-{i386,amd64} removal

Samuel Thibault-8
In reply to this post by Svante Signell-2
Svante Signell, le sam. 13 avril 2019 12:36:54 +0200, a ecrit:
> On Sat, 2019-04-13 at 12:18 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > He rightfully means he does not want patches, but patches getting
> > submitted upstream, so he does not have to maintain them. A Debian
> > package maintainer is not supposed to maintain patches long-term.
>
> Then the question of which responsibilities a package maintainer has
> should be investigated by the CTTE.

Please stop discussing about this, pulling CTTE in won't help with
anything, you can't force volunteers to be doing work.

This was already discussed before, and is out of scope from this thread,
and not the time to discuss about it.

Really, you need to learn to stop trying to bully people into the way
you want things to happen.

Samuel

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hurd-i386 and kfreebsd-{i386,amd64} removal

Aurelien Jarno
In reply to this post by Samuel Thibault-8
On 2019-04-12 23:01, Samuel Thibault wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Joerg Jaspert, le ven. 12 avril 2019 22:48:42 +0200, a ecrit:
> > back in August 2018 we discussed architecture inclusion into
> > unstable/experimental.
> >
> > Today we had our regular FTPMaster meeting and discussed hurd and both
> > kfreebsd architecture and decided to remove them from unstable and
> > experimental 2 weeks from now.
>
> Just before the Buster release? That's far from the easiest timing.
>
> I was hoping to do a non-official relase of Debian Hurd along Buster as
> usual, but a change of archive, which means uploading packages, fixing
> scripts, etc. will take a lot of time, which I simply just will not have
> within the coming two-three months (I am already struggling to find time
> to do what I engaged to). Basically, it means no non-official release of
> Debian Hurd along Buster. Or at best I could just make that non-official
> release now, with all the still pending RC bugs.
>
> How is the move to debian-ports supposed to happen? I won't have the
> time to do anything about it within the 2 weeks.

The process to inject all packages to debian-ports is to get all the
deb, udeb and buildinfo files from the archives (main and debug) and
associate them with the .changes files that are hosted on coccia. We'll
also need to fetch all the associated GPG keys used to sign the changes
files. Then we can inject that in the debian-ports archive.

It would be nice to have a bit more than 2 weeks to do all of that.

Aurelien

--
Aurelien Jarno                          GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
[hidden email]                 http://www.aurel32.net

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hurd-i386 and kfreebsd-{i386,amd64} removal

Samuel Thibault-8
In reply to this post by Carsten Schoenert
Carsten Schoenert, le sam. 13 avril 2019 12:41:25 +0200, a ecrit:
> Am 13.04.19 um 12:06 schrieb Samuel Thibault:
> >> Both architectures haven't seen any major development in the past years
> >
> > They have.
>
> O.k. need to be more specific, so the same as you mentioned further
> down, ..."in the context of Debian, the packages of Debian and it releases".

In the context of Debian as a distribution itself, there is not much
more to be done actually: the distro can be installed with the normal
debian installer, we don't depend on unreleased patches to have a
working system. We even have gotten llvm working recently.

In a broader Debian meaning, for instance with Helmut we have achieved
cross-bootstrappability of hurd-i386 from amd64, which is really a great
thing, because we know that we can now reboostrap the whole distribution
thanks to this if needed.

> > Patching software should be handled upstream indeed.
>
> Yes, but most upstreams are a bit reserved

You mean, more than the Debian maintainers?

Well, at some point, "so be it, you won't have the works-on-Hurd badge".

For base packages like librsvg, the question is of a bigger importance,
for the port of course, but also for computer science in general: if
base packages can't easily be ported to new operating systems, the whole
computer science will be just stuck with Linux, and I don't think it's a
good thing.

That reminds me a recent paper about the requirement for fork() in the
Unix interface (https://lwn.net/Articles/785430/), which notably says
that because of the complexity for implementing it, it's hard to create
new operating systems with new ideas while providing a POSIX interface
for being useful in general.

> >> So I disagree on "One person is enough"
> >
> > I meant only for the Debian-specific things, I am the only DD who
> > currently uses its key for signing packages, making CD images, etc.
> > That's what I meant by "the daily ports things".
>
> Well, I guess it's not that easy I fear as there are no parts that can
> be seen as separate standalone things, it's all connected in various ways.

Yes, these are very intertwinned, but I like working on it and the
current Debian infrastructure makes it easy enough to do.

> But realistically it's not enough in my eyes to keep Hurd on even
> tracking the normal evolving of Debian.

I have since long stopped hoping that the Hurd port would ever be an
arch released in Debian (see previous threads in the past years about
moving to debian-ports). Just for the security guarantees it would
require, that can't work.

But as a debian-ports, I believe it can continue working just like it
has in the past years.

Samuel

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hurd-i386 and kfreebsd-{i386,amd64} removal

Philipp Kern-6
In reply to this post by Aurelien Jarno
On 4/13/2019 12:49 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> The process to inject all packages to debian-ports is to get all the
> deb, udeb and buildinfo files from the archives (main and debug) and
> associate them with the .changes files that are hosted on coccia. We'll
> also need to fetch all the associated GPG keys used to sign the changes
> files. Then we can inject that in the debian-ports archive.
I'm curious how the GPG bit works given that there is no guarantee that
the signature can be validated at any other point in time than ingestion
on ftp-master - especially considering the rotation/expiry of subkeys
and buildd keys. In this case the files already come from a trusted
source and should be ingested as-is, I guess? (Not that I particularly
like the fact that it's only a point in time validation.)

Kind regards
Philipp Kern

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hurd-i386 and kfreebsd-{i386,amd64} removal

Aurelien Jarno
On 2019-04-13 13:07, Philipp Kern wrote:

> On 4/13/2019 12:49 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > The process to inject all packages to debian-ports is to get all the
> > deb, udeb and buildinfo files from the archives (main and debug) and
> > associate them with the .changes files that are hosted on coccia. We'll
> > also need to fetch all the associated GPG keys used to sign the changes
> > files. Then we can inject that in the debian-ports archive.
> I'm curious how the GPG bit works given that there is no guarantee that
> the signature can be validated at any other point in time than ingestion
> on ftp-master - especially considering the rotation/expiry of subkeys
> and buildd keys.

All the old buildd keys can be fetch from fasolo and can be used to
validate the signatures.

> In this case the files already come from a trusted
> source and should be ingested as-is, I guess? (Not that I particularly
> like the fact that it's only a point in time validation.)

Yes in that case, it's possible to resign the changes files, or let the
buildds to rebuild the corresponding packages.

--
Aurelien Jarno                          GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
[hidden email]                 http://www.aurel32.net

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hurd-i386 and kfreebsd-{i386,amd64} removal

Joerg Jaspert
In reply to this post by Aurelien Jarno
On 15371 March 1977, Aurelien Jarno wrote:

>> How is the move to debian-ports supposed to happen? I won't have the
>> time to do anything about it within the 2 weeks.

> The process to inject all packages to debian-ports is to get all the
> deb, udeb and buildinfo files from the archives (main and debug) and
> associate them with the .changes files that are hosted on coccia. We'll
> also need to fetch all the associated GPG keys used to sign the changes
> files. Then we can inject that in the debian-ports archive.

> It would be nice to have a bit more than 2 weeks to do all of that.

Ok. How much? Is 6 or 8 weeks better? I don't think, given how long this
is on the table already, it doesn't make much difference if its 2 or 8.
Just something thats clear defined and not some random, non-clear
"sometime in the future" point.

--
bye, Joerg

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hurd-i386 and kfreebsd-{i386,amd64} removal

John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
Hello!

Just as a heads-up: Sending mail to [hidden email] ends up sending
the mail to debian-alpha@, debian-hppa@, debian-ia64@, ... simultaneously,
so it would be better to avoid using this address in the discussion.

Thanks,
Adrian

--
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - [hidden email]
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - [hidden email]
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hurd-i386 and kfreebsd-{i386,amd64} removal

Aurelien Jarno
In reply to this post by Samuel Thibault-8
On 2019-04-12 23:01, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Hello,
>
> How is the move to debian-ports supposed to happen? I won't have the
> time to do anything about it within the 2 weeks.

Note that there is no need for the removed architectures to be hosted on
debian-ports, especially if you are not satisfied by the way it works.
Feel free to get them hosted somewhere else.

Aurelien

--
Aurelien Jarno                          GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
[hidden email]                 http://www.aurel32.net

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hurd-i386 and kfreebsd-{i386,amd64} removal

Samuel Thibault-8
Aurelien Jarno, le dim. 14 avril 2019 16:08:20 +0200, a ecrit:
> On 2019-04-12 23:01, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > How is the move to debian-ports supposed to happen? I won't have the
> > time to do anything about it within the 2 weeks.
>
> Note that there is no need for the removed architectures to be hosted on
> debian-ports, especially if you are not satisfied by the way it works.
> Feel free to get them hosted somewhere else.

I don't see a reason for not hosting it on debian-ports, it'll make it
way simpler for the rest of the workflow with buildd etc.

Samuel

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hurd-i386 and kfreebsd-{i386,amd64} removal

Matthias Klose
In reply to this post by Joerg Jaspert
On 13.04.19 17:01, Joerg Jaspert wrote:

> On 15371 March 1977, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
>>> How is the move to debian-ports supposed to happen? I won't have the
>>> time to do anything about it within the 2 weeks.
>
>> The process to inject all packages to debian-ports is to get all the
>> deb, udeb and buildinfo files from the archives (main and debug) and
>> associate them with the .changes files that are hosted on coccia. We'll
>> also need to fetch all the associated GPG keys used to sign the changes
>> files. Then we can inject that in the debian-ports archive.
>
>> It would be nice to have a bit more than 2 weeks to do all of that.
>
> Ok. How much? Is 6 or 8 weeks better? I don't think, given how long this
> is on the table already, it doesn't make much difference if its 2 or 8.
> Just something thats clear defined and not some random, non-clear
> "sometime in the future" point.

well, please go back in history to see the same short notice for the hppa
removal, and then do the exercise how long it took to integrate that
architecture on debian-ports.


>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hurd-i386 and kfreebsd-{i386,amd64} removal

Samuel Thibault-8
In reply to this post by Samuel Thibault-8
Hello,

Samuel Thibault, le sam. 13 avril 2019 12:16:54 +0200, a ecrit:

> Holger Levsen, le sam. 13 avril 2019 09:50:25 +0000, a ecrit:
> > I can see how the ftpteam doesnt want to delay this *after* the Buster
> > release,
>
> Ok, if it can't be after Buster releases because e.g. ftpmaster wants to
> clean the archive before it, the discussion is moot, I can just make the
> non-official Hurd release this week (since the scripts currently work
> it's really quick to do) with the RC bugs, and we can make the move and
> let scripts etc. be broken for a couple of months until I have time to
> fix them back.

So I could produce some hurd CD images with the archive from this
week-end.  Aurélien injected the hurd-i386 archive to debian-ports, and
we got the buildds running. Various scripts will start breaking but at
least package building will continue like before. Perhaps I'll have time
to fix the CD image building scripts before the Buster release, to make
more recent image builds, but as I said I can't promise anything.

Samuel

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hurd-i386 and kfreebsd-{i386,amd64} removal

Jonathan Carter (highvoltage)-2
On 2019/04/22 20:00, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> So I could produce some hurd CD images with the archive from this
> week-end.  Aurélien injected the hurd-i386 archive to debian-ports, and
> we got the buildds running. Various scripts will start breaking but at
> least package building will continue like before. Perhaps I'll have time
> to fix the CD image building scripts before the Buster release, to make
> more recent image builds, but as I said I can't promise anything.

That's fantastic news, is that image somewhere public where we can
download it?

-Jonathan

--
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀  Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) <jcc>
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  Debian Developer - https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org
  ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀  Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hurd-i386 and kfreebsd-{i386,amd64} removal

Samuel Thibault-8
Jonathan Carter, le lun. 22 avril 2019 21:42:33 +0200, a ecrit:

> On 2019/04/22 20:00, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > So I could produce some hurd CD images with the archive from this
> > week-end.  Aurélien injected the hurd-i386 archive to debian-ports, and
> > we got the buildds running. Various scripts will start breaking but at
> > least package building will continue like before. Perhaps I'll have time
> > to fix the CD image building scripts before the Buster release, to make
> > more recent image builds, but as I said I can't promise anything.
>
> That's fantastic news, is that image somewhere public where we can
> download it?

I'm not really at ease with widely publishing an image which has
"Buster" labels on it while Buster hasn't been published yet.

As a reminder, installation & preinstalled images are produced from
times to times, the latest (20th february) is available on

http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/ports/latest/hurd-i386/

as usual.

Samuel

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hurd-i386 and kfreebsd-{i386,amd64} removal

Aurelien Jarno
In reply to this post by Joerg Jaspert
On 2019-04-13 17:01, Joerg Jaspert wrote:

> On 15371 March 1977, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
> > > How is the move to debian-ports supposed to happen? I won't have the
> > > time to do anything about it within the 2 weeks.
>
> > The process to inject all packages to debian-ports is to get all the
> > deb, udeb and buildinfo files from the archives (main and debug) and
> > associate them with the .changes files that are hosted on coccia. We'll
> > also need to fetch all the associated GPG keys used to sign the changes
> > files. Then we can inject that in the debian-ports archive.
>
> > It would be nice to have a bit more than 2 weeks to do all of that.
>
> Ok. How much? Is 6 or 8 weeks better? I don't think, given how long this
> is on the table already, it doesn't make much difference if its 2 or 8.
> Just something thats clear defined and not some random, non-clear
> "sometime in the future" point.
The hurd-i386 architecture has been moved to to debian-ports yesterday.
I hope it shows the willingness to do that. Please give us at least 4
more weeks to do the remaining kfreebsd-*. That will provide some margin
to account for the non-infinite free time to work on that (especially in
the freeze period) and possibly to get more disk space for the
debian-ports machine.

--
Aurelien Jarno                          GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
[hidden email]                 http://www.aurel32.net

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hurd-i386 and kfreebsd-{i386,amd64} removal

Joerg Jaspert
On 15381 March 1977, Aurelien Jarno wrote:

>> > It would be nice to have a bit more than 2 weeks to do all of that.
>> Ok. How much? Is 6 or 8 weeks better? I don't think, given how long this
>> is on the table already, it doesn't make much difference if its 2 or 8.
>> Just something thats clear defined and not some random, non-clear
>> "sometime in the future" point.
> The hurd-i386 architecture has been moved to to debian-ports yesterday.
> I hope it shows the willingness to do that. Please give us at least 4
> more weeks to do the remaining kfreebsd-*. That will provide some margin
> to account for the non-infinite free time to work on that (especially in
> the freeze period) and possibly to get more disk space for the
> debian-ports machine.

Thats ok, end of May is a nice point to take.

Thanks for the work and the timeframe for the rest!

--
bye, Joerg

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hurd-i386 and kfreebsd-{i386,amd64} removal

Aurelien Jarno
Hi,

On 2019-04-24 12:34, Joerg Jaspert wrote:

> On 15381 March 1977, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
> > > > It would be nice to have a bit more than 2 weeks to do all of that.
> > > Ok. How much? Is 6 or 8 weeks better? I don't think, given how long this
> > > is on the table already, it doesn't make much difference if its 2 or 8.
> > > Just something thats clear defined and not some random, non-clear
> > > "sometime in the future" point.
> > The hurd-i386 architecture has been moved to to debian-ports yesterday.
> > I hope it shows the willingness to do that. Please give us at least 4
> > more weeks to do the remaining kfreebsd-*. That will provide some margin
> > to account for the non-infinite free time to work on that (especially in
> > the freeze period) and possibly to get more disk space for the
> > debian-ports machine.
>
> Thats ok, end of May is a nice point to take.
>
> Thanks for the work and the timeframe for the rest!
kfreebsd-amd64 and kfreebsd-i386 have now been moved to debian-ports. As
hurd-i386 has been moved earlier, it means that all the 3 architectures
have now been moved.

Aurelien

--
Aurelien Jarno                          GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
[hidden email]                 http://www.aurel32.net

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hurd-i386 and kfreebsd-{i386,amd64} removal

Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo-2
Hi,

Em sáb, 25 de mai de 2019 às 10:57, Aurelien Jarno
<[hidden email]> escreveu:
>
> kfreebsd-amd64 and kfreebsd-i386 have now been moved to debian-ports. As
> hurd-i386 has been moved earlier, it means that all the 3 architectures
> have now been moved.

Nice :-)

Not sure who's the admin (I couldn't find the admin address in the
main pages), but they're not registered in the graphs (while
powerpcpse, recently removed, still is).

https://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph-ports-week-big.png


--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hurd-i386 and kfreebsd-{i386,amd64} removal

John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
On 5/25/19 1:00 PM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
> Not sure who's the admin (I couldn't find the admin address in the
> main pages), but they're not registered in the graphs (while
> powerpcpse, recently removed, still is).
Could you please not use debian-ports@ unless you actually want to
send a mail that is supposed to reach the mailing lists for every
single ports architecture? Every time someone posts in this thread,
I am receiving 9 identical mails -.-.

Thanks,
Adrian

--
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - [hidden email]
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - [hidden email]
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

123