Simon Law | 3 Oct 16:34 2006

UbuntuHugDay - 4 October 2006

Hello Ubunteros!

We're getting close to release and we've sent the beta of Edgy Eft into
the wide, wide world.  But before we finish it, we're going to want to
put it through the paces, so we'd really like your help.  Volunteering
to help with bugs is simple and easy!

Join us this Wednesday, 4 October, in the #ubuntu-bugs IRC channel on
irc.freenode.net.  We'll be glad to see you.  For more information,
please see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugDay.

Cheers,
--

-- 
Simon Law                                 http://www.law.yi.org/~sfllaw/

t u | 3 Oct 18:46 2006
Picon

Re: UbuntuHugDay - 4 October 2006

Simon Law wrote:
> Join us this Wednesday, 4 October, in the #ubuntu-bugs IRC channel on
> irc.freenode.net.  We'll be glad to see you.  For more information,
> please see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugDay.
> 
> Cheers,

hi,

is it possible to add "triaging no-package-assigned-bugs" to the list of
objectives in the wiki page?

I find that every time I specify a package for a given bug, it gets real
attention. Some bugs I assigned to (proper) packages even got "ubuntu
6.10" as their target in a few hours or so, which is great :)
thanks.
--

-- 
Please scan all attachments for viruses.
Or (though you might like Rodin) you might as well avoid "The Gates of
Hell" and use Linux.

Steven Wagner | 3 Oct 20:46 2006
Picon

mysql-admin 1.1.6-1build1 has problems.

Regarding mysql-admin 1.1.6-1build1 , current in dapper.

User Administror feature locks the app. Known bug.

http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=17879

Fix is listed in the bug report. Perhaps this could be packaged.

Regards,
Steven Wagner

Reinhard Tartler | 4 Oct 09:34 2006
Picon

Re: mysql-admin 1.1.6-1build1 has problems.

"Steven Wagner" <stevenwagner@...> writes:

> Regarding mysql-admin 1.1.6-1build1 , current in dapper.

Could you please use
https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+source/mysql-admin/+filebug next
time to file bugs?

I filed your bug as https://launchpad.net/bugs/63910.

Thanks for your interest in ubuntu.

--

-- 
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4

Daniel Holbach | 5 Oct 11:55 2006

MOTU meeting!

Hello everybody,

we just agreed on having a MOTU meeting on Monday, Oct 9th 14:00 UTC.
Items on the agenda are for now: 

      * Release preparation for Universe / Multiverse.
      * Discuss StableReleaseUpdates policy for Universe / Multiverse.

Be sure to add your agenda item to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings
- but please try to keep it short, so we can get back to fixing Universe
quick. ;-)

The meeting will be in #ubuntu-meeting on irc.freenode.net - so I hope
I'll see you there.

Have a nice day,
 Daniel

Hello everybody,

we just agreed on having a MOTU meeting on Monday, Oct 9th 14:00 UTC.
Items on the agenda are for now: 

      * Release preparation for Universe / Multiverse.
      * Discuss StableReleaseUpdates policy for Universe / Multiverse.

Be sure to add your agenda item to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings
- but please try to keep it short, so we can get back to fixing Universe
(Continue reading)

Luke Yelavich | 6 Oct 10:14 2006

RFC: MOTU build farm project.

Hi all
As I am sure many of us are aware, it is important that we test build a 
package before uploading/getting sponsored to upload a package to 
universe. For the most part this is fine. We have chroots/pbuilders set 
up for this reason. Yet there are times when a package may build 
successfully on one architecture, yet fail on another. Often most of us 
don't know this is the case, until the package hits the build servers, 
and fails to build, as we do not have access to that architecture's 
hardware to test build on.

Some of us are lucky enough to have access to more than one Ubuntu 
supported architecture, the most common being amd64 and i386, as amd64 
machines can handle i386. Then there are also more of us who happen to 
have access to PowerPC hardware, and so it goes on. If we remember often 
enough, we may also run a test build of a package on these other 
architectures, just to be safe. However, there are also those of us who 
may only have one or two machines, which are likely to be i386.

I think it is time that a few of us put our heads together, and came up 
with a solution to allow people who have access to less common 
architectures donate some CPU cycles and bandwidth for others to test 
build/debug architecture specific build failures. Such donation has 
already been done by Brandon Holtsclaw, who has donated access to a few 
MOTUs for building/testing. This has been beneficial for both Brandon, 
who has access to the hardware, and the MOTUs who have accounts on the 
donated hardware, as they can produce packages that are a lot more 
likely to build on all architectures.

I am also sure there are many of us out there who have hardware they 
would like to donate access to, but haven't got around to doing so. I 
(Continue reading)

Chris Hanson | 6 Oct 06:14 2006
Picon
Picon

getting fixed version of mit-scheme into universe

Hi,

I'm the maintainer of the Debian mit-scheme packages, as well as the
upstream author.  I've noticed that these packages haven't been updated
in universe for a long time, apparently because they can't be built from
source.  There's a reason for this, which is that a sufficiently new
version of MIT/GNU Scheme must be installed in order to build from
source.  (The majority of the source is written in Scheme and must be
compiled by the Scheme compiler to build a binary, so there's a
bootstrap issue to contend with.)  Periodically, the changes between
releases mean that there is no released package "sufficiently new" to
compile the sources.

This isn't a problem for upstream, because we always release both
sources and binaries.  And it's not a problem for Debian, because I
always use a non-packaged upstream binary to build the binary packages
that I upload.  But it does appear to be a problem for Ubuntu, because
automated building doesn't work in these cases, and no one is uploading
manually-built binaries.

So, what can be done to resolve this issue?  I'd like there to be
up-to-date binaries in Ubuntu.  I build such binary packages as part of
the upstream release, and distribute them from the MIT/GNU Scheme home
page.  Is there some way that I can get hand-built binaries uploaded to
the archive?

Launchpad considers me to be the "maintainer" for these packages (as
well as all the others I maintain for Debian), but it's not obvious to
me what that means, and whether there are any associated privileges
and/or responsibilities.  I'm pretty sure it doesn't allow me to upload
(Continue reading)

Stefan Potyra | 6 Oct 13:32 2006

Re: getting fixed version of mit-scheme into universe

Hi Chris,

(CC to Adam for further comments).

Am Freitag 06 Oktober 2006 06:14 schrieb Chris Hanson:
> Hi,
>
> I'm the maintainer of the Debian mit-scheme packages, as well as the
> upstream author.  I've noticed that these packages haven't been updated
> in universe for a long time, apparently because they can't be built from
> source.  There's a reason for this, which is that a sufficiently new
> version of MIT/GNU Scheme must be installed in order to build from
> source.  (The majority of the source is written in Scheme and must be
> compiled by the Scheme compiler to build a binary, so there's a
> bootstrap issue to contend with.)  Periodically, the changes between
> releases mean that there is no released package "sufficiently new" to
> compile the sources.
>
> This isn't a problem for upstream, because we always release both
> sources and binaries.  And it's not a problem for Debian, because I
> always use a non-packaged upstream binary to build the binary packages
> that I upload.  But it does appear to be a problem for Ubuntu, because
> automated building doesn't work in these cases, and no one is uploading
> manually-built binaries.
>
> So, what can be done to resolve this issue?  I'd like there to be
> up-to-date binaries in Ubuntu.  I build such binary packages as part of
> the upstream release, and distribute them from the MIT/GNU Scheme home
> page.  Is there some way that I can get hand-built binaries uploaded to
> the archive?
(Continue reading)

Stefan Potyra | 6 Oct 14:36 2006

Re: RFC: MOTU build farm project.

Hi Luke,

Am Freitag 06 Oktober 2006 10:14 schrieb Luke Yelavich:
> Hi all
> As I am sure many of us are aware, it is important that we test build a
> package before uploading/getting sponsored to upload a package to
> universe. For the most part this is fine. We have chroots/pbuilders set
> up for this reason. Yet there are times when a package may build
> successfully on one architecture, yet fail on another. Often most of us
> don't know this is the case, until the package hits the build servers,
> and fails to build, as we do not have access to that architecture's
> hardware to test build on.
>
> Some of us are lucky enough to have access to more than one Ubuntu
> supported architecture, the most common being amd64 and i386, as amd64
> machines can handle i386. Then there are also more of us who happen to
> have access to PowerPC hardware, and so it goes on. If we remember often
> enough, we may also run a test build of a package on these other
> architectures, just to be safe. However, there are also those of us who
> may only have one or two machines, which are likely to be i386.

Just a side note: I've heard rumors that qemu can be used to simulate some 
other arches. Maybe it might also help to do some digging in this direction.

>
> I think it is time that a few of us put our heads together, and came up
> with a solution to allow people who have access to less common
> architectures donate some CPU cycles and bandwidth for others to test
> build/debug architecture specific build failures. Such donation has
> already been done by Brandon Holtsclaw, who has donated access to a few
(Continue reading)

Reinhard Tartler | 7 Oct 10:13 2006
Picon

Building an arch all package on powerpc? Re: RFC: MOTU build farm project.

Stefan Potyra <sistpoty@...> writes:

> Just a side note: I've heard rumors that qemu can be used to simulate some 
> other arches. Maybe it might also help to do some digging in this direction.

In principle yes, modulo: http://launchpad.net/bugs/60478

The problem is that the openhackware package, which
provides a ppc bios, FTBFS in ubuntu: http://launchpad.net/bugs/64501

Is it possible to build openhackware on powerpc instead of i386?

-- 
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4
Stefan Potyra <sistpoty@...> writes:

> Just a side note: I've heard rumors that qemu can be used to simulate some 
> other arches. Maybe it might also help to do some digging in this direction.

In principle yes, modulo: http://launchpad.net/bugs/60478

The problem is that the openhackware package, which
provides a ppc bios, FTBFS in ubuntu: http://launchpad.net/bugs/64501

Is it possible to build openhackware on powerpc instead of i386?

--

-- 
(Continue reading)


Gmane