Participants
aj - AnthonyTowns
neuro - RyanMurray
nchip - RikuVoipio
Q_ - KurtRoeckx
aba - AndreasBarth
elmo - JamesTroup
Ganneff - JoergJaspert
jvw - JeroenVanWolfelaar
Yoe - WouterVerhelst
mlots - DrewScottDaniels
Log
| 12:02 | * | rwhitby represents www.nslu2-linux.org, arm architecture (endian agnostic), installed linux firmware base of over 15K units, 100+ currently with debian installed, working towards integration of nslu2 into debian kernal and installer. |
| 12:02 | aj | hey, so it begins |
| 12:05 | aj | rwhitby: "endian agnostic" ? as in you use arm, don't care about armeb, but could use it if you flipped a coin and it came up tails? |
| 12:06 | neuro | aj: whichever the customer wants, I'd think... |
| 12:06 | neuro | mipsen is the same way for embedded stuff. |
| 12:06 | rwhitby | actually, those 100+ are mostly running armeb at the moment, but the one barrier to using arm(el) (the IXP ethernet driver) has been overcome |
| 12:06 | nchip | aj: long story :) originally it was not agnostic, it worked only properly in bigendian mode |
| 12:07 | rwhitby | The long story is at http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.misc.nslu2.linux/10693 if anyone is interested. |
| 12:07 | aj | elmo! |
| 12:09 | intero | hi |
| 12:10 | Q_ | Are we waiting for something? |
| 12:10 | aj | not really |
| 12:10 | aj | i'm filling in http://ftp-master.debian.org/archive-criteria.html |
| 12:10 | rwhitby | I figured people would introduce themselves while waiting ... |
| 12:11 | aj | rwhitby: so can you comment on armeb's prospects for being an official port? |
| 12:12 | rwhitby | aj: I would leave that to lennert (who is driving the port). nslu2 is now endian agnostic since getting the ixp driver working in both LE and BE. |
| 12:13 | Q_ | rwhitby: Are there any others that might want to use armeb other than the nslu2? |
| 12:14 | rwhitby | 10% of unstable has been built by the two nslu2 buildd's but we would need more powerful armeb hardware to get ahead of the 95% required. |
| 12:14 | neuro | how fast are nslu2s? |
| 12:14 | aj | 95% is the release requirement, though |
| 12:14 | nchip | Q_: highend intel routing gear |
| 12:15 | rwhitby | Q_: most designs based on the IXDP425 reference board are armeb. and the high end stuff that nchip is referring to (and lennert uses) requires armeb |
| 12:16 | rwhitby | nslu2's are 133MHz out of the box, but remove a resistor and they are de-underclocked to 266MHz. |
| 12:16 | neuro | and what's the I/O like? IDE? udma5? |
| 12:17 | rwhitby | nslu2 is USB to hard disks. Iomega NAS 100d (our other potential debian target) is IDE. |
| 12:18 | Q_ | usb2? |
| 12:19 | aj | okay, so http://ftp-master.debian.org/archive-criteria.html has what i can think of for linux arches |
| 12:19 | rwhitby | Q_: yes. nslu2 performance is at http://www.nslu2-linux.org/wiki/Info/Performance, nas100d is at http://www.nslu2-linux.org/wiki/NAS100d/Performance |
| 12:20 | aba | aj: the 50 admin criteria is tougher than the 50 user release criteria |
| 12:21 | aj | hrm |
| 12:22 | nyu | it'd be useful to know what is the criteria when there are multiple lists (e.g. popcon and accounts in a shell server), and it's not possible to weed out duplicates |
| 12:22 | aj | i'm tempted to leave it as 50 admins, except popcon probably won't measure that |
| 12:22 | nyu | do we need a single >=50 list? |
| 12:22 | Q_ | rwhitby: For the nas100d, what's hda and sda? |
| 12:23 | rwhitby | Q_: hda is internal IDE, sda is external USB2 |
| 12:25 | rwhitby | aj: Is a list like http://www.debonaras.org/wiki/Info/OpenDebianSlugUsers acceptable? |
| 12:25 | nchip | what do people think of handling ABI transition with a new arch name? |
| 12:26 | nchip | and accepting such "new" archs to debian official? |
| 12:26 | Mithrandir | nchip: it was mentioned as a possibility which multiarch will give us in the discussions at debconf4, iirc. |
| 12:26 | Q_ | nchip: And do what with the old one? |
| 12:27 | aba | nchip: I think best would be to make a seamless migration, if possible. |
| 12:27 | aba | Mithrandir: I would like to see multiarch working before building plans on it |
| 12:27 | nchip | Q_: maintain it as long as it has users who are willing to maintain it |
| 12:28 | aj | nyu: if you've got two lists, you could make a single list using "cat", or at least "sort -u"; so probably just depends on the lists |
| 12:28 | neuro | having users who are willing to maintain it isn't enough, if those users can't deal with all the similar points of release criteria. |
| 12:28 | nchip | aba: agreed, but without multiarch it is not really simple. renaming all libs for a abi change in one arch is clearly even worse.. |
| 12:29 | aj | if m68k can get 100 (according to its release qual page on the wiki) i don't see the problem :) |
| 12:29 | nyu | aj: yes, we did that for wiki userlists, but popcon is anonymous |
| 12:29 | nyu | so we can't really tell |
| 12:29 | aba | nchip: in that case, making a new arch is the only option left AFAICS |
| 12:29 | aj | popcon counts machines, so if you're doing popcon + shell accounts, you can just subtract 1 |
| 12:29 | aba | (I think you speak about arm's eabi) |
| 12:30 | nyu | uhm right |
| 12:30 | aj | renaming all libs is what we're almost doing for the C++ changes every other month |
| 12:30 | nchip | yes, and mips nubi (althoug I think NUBI is more controversial) |
| 12:30 | aj | we also did it for libc5->6 |
| 12:30 | Mithrandir | aj: it would be considerably worse if we had to rename _all_ libs, wouldn't it? |
| 12:30 | nyu | aj: what if a user has a shell account at the server, plus a machine at home? |
| 12:30 | aba | aj: but only the c++-ones, not *all* packages |
| 12:30 | nyu | then he's being counted twice |
| 12:30 | aba | aj: and we even have to rename all packages, if the kernel cannot cope with old and new abi at the same time (which is true for arm IIRC) |
| 12:31 | aj | the main difference is "apt-get dist-upgrade" won't work if you change the arch name, which isn't remotely acceptable for release candidates |
| 12:31 | Q_ | aj: But a port can't go and rename binary packages. |
| 12:31 | aj | if you've got an arch that's not remotely releasable yet, rm -rf'ing the port and starting from scratch isn't /completely/ out of the question, i guess |
| 12:31 | aba | aj: well, why not have both variants in parallel for the time of one release, and then kill the old one? |
| 12:31 | neuro | aj: and has happened at least once in the past... |
| 12:32 | aj | nyu: if a user has a workstation at work and a pc at home, he gets counted twice with popcon too |
| 12:32 | nchip | aj: you cant distupgrade a i386 installation to amd64 installation, if you installed i386 originally on your amd64 machine |
| 12:32 | Mithrandir | nchip: people keep dreaming about being able to, though. |
| 12:32 | aba | (anyways, I don't see the arm's eabi will get stable enough very soon) |
| 12:32 | nyu | aj: ah i see. very nice, then |
| 12:32 | aba | Mithrandir: if the problem is solved for i386->amd64, it should be able to solve it for arm->earm |
| 12:32 | nchip | Mithrandir: what's ubuntu's plans for multiarch (since it probably happens there first, right?) |
| 12:33 | aj | aba: well, why not fix the kernel to support both abis? |
| 12:33 | aba | aj: I'm don't have enough insight to answer to this question. |
| 12:33 | aj | aba: epoching arch names is a horrible, horrible idea |
| 12:33 | aba | aj: but currently, eabi doesn't really run at all, leaving alone the question of "how should a migration look like" |
| 12:34 | aba | aj: frankly speaking, I'd prefer to being able to migrate soft with e.g. multiarch or so. Well, if I look at eabi's speed, multiarch could be ready in time :) |
| 12:34 | nchip | aba: I have a eabi root filesystem that boots upto X, so "doesn't really run" is not true |
| 12:34 | Mithrandir | nchip: I've been thinking about just pushing for a transition to new-style paths before deciding on how to do the dpkg/apt/archive bits of it, since it seems that's how far consensus has stretched so far. |
| 12:35 | aba | nchip: oh, there has been progress? My latest understanding was that there are lots of issues still open. |
| 12:35 | Mithrandir | nchip: and if so, I'd like the changes to happen in Debian first, to not end up with a totally insane merge in ubuntu. |
| 12:35 | aj | okay, so do we have any m68k people around? |
| 12:36 | aba | aj: I've seen Yoe on #d-devel a few minutes ago |
| 12:36 | Q_ | Invite Yoe? He seems to be around. |
| 12:36 | nchip | aba: the eabi bits just have not been in mainline toolchains until now. |
| 12:36 | aj | okay, how about hurd people? |
| 12:37 | aba | .oO(azeem has even the op-bit here) |
| 12:37 | aj | azeem's on holidays |
| 12:38 | aj | okay, so another question is "what should we do about non release candidate ports?" |
| 12:38 | aj | default answer: unstable + experimental + a pat on the head |
| 12:39 | nyu | any chance we can get testing? |
| 12:39 | aba | nyu: I don't see that, as far as you're away from being a release arch |
| 12:39 | aj | sure, if you meet the release criteria |
| 12:39 | neuro | nyu: testing is where the next release is being prepared, since it's not release candidate, testing makes little sense? |
| 12:39 | nyu | ok |
| 12:40 | Q_ | Maybe a snapshot of unstable? |
| 12:40 | aj | i mean, there are two options: try to release; or say "releasing isn't appropriate for our arch, ______ would be instead" |
| 12:40 | aba | (it would make sense if there are few things left, and we expect that it would become an release arch soon enough) |
| 12:40 | nyu | yes, sounds reasonable |
| 12:40 | nyu | for kfreebsd-i386 we expect to be release-capable soon, but not yet |
| 12:40 | aj | arm's problem is apparently upstream toolchain support; and some underpoweredness |
| 12:41 | nyu | for unstable, what are the requirements specific to non-Linux ports? (other than license issues) |
| 12:41 | rwhitby | I thought upstream toolchain support was solved for arm (according to the requal wiki page) |
| 12:41 | aj | do any of the arm folks (or armeb folks) think it makes sense to do anything other than fix those problems and be a release arch? |
| 12:41 | kyllikki | aj: the upstream toolchain support is a very red herring |
| 12:41 | neuro | that's a good question. |
| 12:41 | nchip | aj: the upstream toolchain part is not true. |
| 12:42 | aba | aj: on the short term, I think that's the only way (now speaking as someone looking closely at arm*) |
| 12:42 | kyllikki | aj: and all were missing is the open acess box which there is a suitable one sat at black cat networks which elmo has turned down |
| 12:42 | aj | nchip, kyllikki: you should poke mr aba here to update the etch table then |
| 12:43 | * | aba hides his release manager's hat |
| 12:43 | aj | aba: (the reason you wear the hat is so you can pull it down over your forehead so no one sees the "bloody idiot" branded there) |
| 12:43 | nchip | aj: I sent a mail to debian-release about the issue. can we get a contact address on that page or a bts virtual package? |
| 12:43 | neuro | kyllikki: umm, I haven't seen any request made to DSA. elmo is not the appropriate email address for DSA requests. I'm aware of one system pending atm, and it isn't at black cat. |
| 12:43 | rwhitby | kyllikki: there have also been offers of nslu2 boxes with hosting for armel or armeb developer access |
| 12:44 | aj | nchip: just whine at aba |
| 12:44 | * | aba looks something up now |
| 12:44 | kyllikki | tbh Im getting pissed off that I do all this stuff for the arch and others create issues which wernt there before |
| 12:44 | kyllikki | neuro: email addr to forward the mail from him after the last round of DSA mail? |
| 12:45 | neuro | debian-admin@lists.debian.org is the debian-admin contact address. |
| 12:45 | neuro | debian-admin@d.o if it shouldn't go to local admins |
| 12:46 | aba | nchip: sorry for not fixing it. Indeed, this mail was prepared for some time, and last when I looked, it was not there. |
| 12:47 | aba | nchip: web page updated |
| 12:48 | nchip | aba: thanks. it was our fault too.. we knew binutils was supported, but we where not sure by who officially so that part of page was left empty waiting for confirmation. |
| 12:49 | aba | nchip: well, having a "binutils: yes [looking by whom personally, nchip/2005-...]" would have helped much, because that would have increased chances of asking you before sending out the mail. |
| 12:51 | elmo | kyllikki: umm, I turned down a box that didn't have hosting, not one "sat at black cat" |
| 12:51 | aj | sat on the mat at black cat? |
| 12:52 | kyllikki | elmo: I thought it was made clear to you when you said Sledges place wasnt apropriate noodles and huggie said they would find a home for it |
| 12:53 | elmo | kyllikki: if that's what happened it happened after I was on vacation without internet access (announced on -private); so I haven't even read that email yet, never mind had a chance to turn anything down |
| 12:54 | kyllikki | elmo: you said you were gonna go with a box provided by joey hess? |
| 12:54 | neuro | "find a home" != "found a home, host up and ready for DSA setup?" |
| 12:54 | elmo | kyllikki: if the alternative was a box on sledge's ADSL, yes |
| 12:54 | aba | do we still need a hosting place for that box? |
| 12:55 | elmo | kyllikki: also, bear in mind (and I think I mentioned this in the email) the last time I asked for hosting in the UK, I couldn't get hosting for an arm box a) as a buildd and b) even from BlackCat |
| 12:55 | kyllikki | elmo: shrug, as usual it seems were destined to get wires crossed and make no progress with this box...maybe its cursed? |
| 12:55 | aj | ooo |
| 12:55 | elmo | aba: not if blackcat are happy to host it |
| 12:56 | aj | there's a good question to add: "Is port cursed?" |
| 12:56 | aba | elmo: good. Otherwise, I have 2-4 places in .de/.at where we might have quite good changes |
| 12:56 | * | aj wonders what ia64's answer would've been |
| 12:56 | kyllikki | elmo: huggie said it was ok |
| 12:56 | neuro | how about the standards that the (lib)C implementations conforms to? |
| 12:57 | Q_ | That's for non-linux ports I guess? |
| 12:57 | * | maswan grumbles about the relevant people at his uni not answering his inquiries about hosting devel machines |
| 12:57 | neuro | yes |
| 12:57 | kyllikki | elmo: if that is acceptable I will get it so its up and powered when everyones back in the new year? atm people are getting inebriated for th new year |
| 12:58 | kyllikki | elmo: and drunk in charge of root login shouldnt be allowed |
| 12:58 | Q_ | From what I understand, there are 2 netbsd ports, but they use a different libc? |
| 12:59 | aj | okay, reload, there's some OS-specific questions too |
| 12:59 | elmo | kyllikki: let me catch up on email - there's about 3 different discussions going on about arm machines atm - and get back to you today or tomorrow |
| 12:59 | kyllikki | elmo: fil offered to do the admin too, would that be helpful? |
| 12:59 | elmo | kyllikki: fil's already DSA, that's somewhat redundant? |
| 12:59 | aj | fil's DSA? who's fil? |
| 12:59 | kyllikki | elmo: yeah but he offered to do the setup specificaly if others were too busy |
| 12:59 | elmo | phil hands |
| 13:00 | elmo | kyllikki: if he does, then, great |
| 13:00 | aj | wow, he ircs and everything |
| 13:01 | nyu | Q_: yes, but none of them is active |
| 13:02 | nyu | Q_: (besides, most of the ongoing work on gnu/kfreebsd can be reused for gnu/knetbsd) |
| 13:03 | aj | oh, biarch needs a mention |
| 13:03 | aj | why shouldn't gnu/k*bsd be bi/triarch anyway? |
| 13:03 | nyu | tri? |
| 13:04 | nyu | we have Linux abi emulation, with some caveats. biarch can be provided if someone works on it |
| 13:04 | aj | free, net, open |
| 13:05 | nyu | abi is different |
| 13:05 | nyu | oh, right |
| 13:05 | nyu | free doesn't emulate the other *bsd afaik |
| 13:05 | nyu | net emulates free |
| 13:05 | mlots__ | dragonfly bsd? |
| 13:05 | nyu | i don't know about open |
| 13:06 | aj | the *bsd stuff don't seem to rate on the "What's this provide over upstream *BSD distros" or "What's it provide over Debian Linux?" -- two architectures even moreso |
| 13:06 | nyu | no idea about dragon either. perhaps kernel interface is so similar we could just provide a "kernel of dragonfly" package instead |
| 13:07 | nyu | aj: http://wiki.debian.org/Debian_GNU/kFreeBSD_why |
| 13:08 | aj | " kFreeBSD offers an alternative in case Linux is branded illegal by the SCO case or other threats." |
| 13:08 | aj | *cough* |
| 13:09 | mlots____ | As to the freeness of the win32 port, ReactOS is GPL/LGPL. It'd be useful to have second class status for it when it gets packaged. |
| 13:09 | mlots____ | My appologies for the disconnects. I'm not sure what's happening. |
| 13:10 | aj | having a single (Debian GNU) userspace that lets you run either freebsd or netbsd kernel (possibly with different basic tools, firewalling whatever) at your whim would be more plausible |
| 13:10 | aj | mlots____: you're still pretty laggy |
| 13:11 | mlots | This connection seems to be pretty unusable. Sorry aj |
| 13:11 | aba | in fact, I'd like to be able to choose between different kernels (re *bsd). Being able to choose is one of the good things in open source |
| 13:12 | neuro | that's a huge undertaking, however. |
| 13:12 | nyu | aj: doesn't sound easy |
| 13:12 | nyu | although there are plans for it |
| 13:13 | nyu | but not short term |
| 13:13 | nyu | besides, there's only one active *bsd port atm |
| 13:13 | neuro | look at how much work has to be done in say, d-i, to go from 2.4 to 2.6. |
| 13:13 | nyu | heh yes |
| 13:13 | nyu | we have problems with 5.x vs 6.x too |
| 13:14 | neuro | and all of the places we provide glue just by installing a package, which would have to be made to work on the other OS' as well |
| 13:14 | aj | nyu: managing 15G of debs isn't easy either |
| 13:15 | neuro | it also makes packaging more complex, which tends to make it more fragile |
| 13:15 | nyu | aj: i didn't mean it was |
| 13:16 | aj | okay, http://ftp-master.debian.org/archive-criteria.html - updated again |
| 13:17 | neuro | (the patches I've had for !linux archs that break linux are almost at a 1:1 ratio, for example...) |
| 13:17 | nyu | but, again, the other *bsd haven't gathered enough interest to the date for someone to make a functional port. I don't think you should be so much concerned about the space these ports would take since they don't exist yet |
| 13:17 | nyu | Guillem Jover had a document about kernel-independant userland if you're interested, though |
| 13:18 | aj | saying "yes" to GNU/kFreeBSD serves as a precedent for saying "yes" to GNU/kNetBSD; so before you say the first yes, you need to be clear on why the second one should be "no", or willing to accept both being "yes" |
| 13:20 | nyu | I'm not sure about that. If GNU/kFreeBSD meets the requirements (whatever they are), and there was a GNU/kNetBSD port, how can one tell beforehand if the second would meet the requirements too? |
| 13:20 | neuro | nyu: the point is in making clear what the requirements are |
| 13:20 | neuro | and why they exist |
| 13:20 | nyu | ah, ok |
| 13:21 | nyu | ah, found it |
| 13:21 | nyu | http://www.hadrons.org/~guillem/debian/ports/gnu-any/ |
| 13:21 | aj | nyu: because the alternatives are "whoever asks first wins, even if that's not best for our users" or "whoever asks gets in, even if we can't cope with the load" |
| 13:22 | neuro | you can't, as a distribution, integrate all of the components well if your packages limit themselves to gnu-any, however... |
| 13:22 | nyu | yes |
| 13:22 | nyu | it's a difficult issue |
| 13:22 | nyu | but "gnu-any" is just a long-term plan |
| 13:23 | nyu | it needs huge work to even get hello.c, and hasn't even started yet |
| 13:23 | aj | for k*BSD, gnu-any + a smaller number of apps compiled for the specific kernel might be worthwhile (separated into kfreebsd, knetbsd sections say) |
| 13:23 | nyu | I don't think we should center the discussion on this |
| 13:23 | aj | the biarch question needs to be answered before you get a "yes", though |
| 13:24 | aj | (same as for mip/mips, sh*, ppc/ppc64, etc) |
| 13:25 | nyu | biarch is no problem. the problem is making a base system that can boot/work with any of them |
| 13:25 | nyu | we can't handle all kernel-specific apps or libraries in a case-by-case basis |
| 13:25 | aj | that doesn't seem very important? have a base system for kfreebsd, a different one for knetbsd, and common apps |
| 13:26 | nyu | uhm |
| 13:26 | nyu | we could use kfreebsd ABI, and then get knetbsd to run *most* of kfreebsd userland |
| 13:27 | nyu | but is that technicaly possible with biarch? |
| 13:27 | nyu | i thought both arches had to be complete |
| 13:27 | aj | everything's technically possible |
| 13:27 | nyu | well, right |
| 13:28 | nyu | then if someone wants to do a knetbsd port, they'd have to: |
| 13:28 | nyu | - extend biarch to support this combination |
| 13:28 | nyu | - build a base system specific to knetbsd, plus kernel-specific apps/libs |
| 13:28 | nyu | - use kfreebsd-i386 packages for the rest |
| 13:28 | nyu | that sounds plausible? |
| 13:29 | aj | if it was going to support netbsd kernels, it'd make sense to call it kbsd-i386 |
| 13:29 | nyu | yes |
| 13:30 | nyu | but: |
| 13:30 | nyu | - what about abi emulation for kfreebsd in non-bsd systems? |
| 13:31 | nyu | - kfreebsd-i386 is not necessarily a wrong name even if knetbsd was added, it would describe the kernel abi |
| 13:31 | nyu | (and it wouldn't be less descriptive than, say, i386) |
| 13:31 | aj | those are things you should note down for the related arches question |
| 13:32 | aj | probably doing some analysis of the differences between freebsd ABI, netbsd ABI and potential gnu-bsd ABI |
| 13:33 | nyu | well, at kernel level we use the same abi as upstream |
| 13:33 | nyu | coming up with something new (and incompatible) doesn't sound like a good idea |
| 13:34 | nyu | btw, will there be a public log of this? |
| 13:34 | aj | "We can support NetBSD kernels using the FreeBSD-compatability stuff in the kernel, the disadvantages for NetBSD users are _____" would be helpful |
| 13:34 | aj | yeah, i'll probably stick it up on wiki.d.o |
| 13:34 | nyu | i see |
| 13:35 | nyu | i take it we're expected to go through the list of questions in http://ftp-master.debian.org/archive-criteria.html and send a response? |
| 13:35 | aj | "we can support netbsd well" ==>. "no need for a knetbsd arch" ==>. reassuring |
| 13:35 | aj | "freebsd rocks, who cares about netbsd" ==>. "if we add this will we be adding netbsd next week? _why??_" ==>. concerning |
| 13:36 | aj | put a response up on the wiki as per the release qualification stuff i think |
| 13:36 | aj | i'm not sure the page is done yet, though; any other comments or additions anyone? |
| 13:37 | nyu | alright |
| 13:37 | nyu | would a proof-of-concept package of knetbsd image for kfreebsd-i386 help? |
| 13:37 | nyu | i mean, rather, a base system |
| 13:38 | aj | numbers on how much it sucks compared to a real freebsd and netbsd system would help too |
| 13:39 | nyu | benchmarks? |
| 13:39 | aj | yeah |
| 13:39 | nyu | i don't think it'll be significantly different |
| 13:40 | nyu | but we can do it, yes.. |
| 13:42 | mlots | Ugg, bad DI-624... sorry |
| 13:44 | mlots | I was saying that the win32 port could meat DFSG due to ReactOS (as was the original argument). ReactOS is usable these days... |
| 13:44 | mlots | but it's dev's don't consider it stable. |
| 13:45 | Q_ | What still needs to happen before the mirror split can happen? |
| 13:45 | mlots | It certainly isn't from a packaging point of view. From a running point of view, sometimes it is. |
| 13:47 | mlots | Sorry if I missed discussion about installers. Fwiw, I think it makes some sence to allow arch specific installers from upstream... for the first part anyway (booting, creating partition, setting up devices...) |
| 13:47 | aj | ah, you're here now? |
| 13:47 | aj | so what's this win32 port and reactos stuff? |
| 13:48 | mlots | I figure it's possible given mingw. |
| 13:48 | mlots | ReactOS can deal with the elf format, I'm not sure if that means running linux apps though. |
| 13:49 | aj | what is reactos? |
| 13:49 | mlots | http://www.reactos.org |
| 13:49 | Ganneff | aj: free nt kernel |
| 13:49 | mlots | It uses wine code for some of the userspace. |
| 13:50 | aj | so effectively a windows clone? |
| 13:50 | nchip | Daniel Rouso is not around but is there any issues with uclibc debian ports? |
| 13:50 | mlots | aj: mostly. They diverge in places. They aim for binary compatibility where it makes sence. |
| 13:51 | neuro | nchip: it would have to have a lot of reasons for why we would want it in addition to the glibc port |
| 13:51 | aj | mlots: eg? |
| 13:52 | mlots | aj: The internal parts of the kernel and low level things can be REactOS specific. |
| 13:53 | aj | mlots: so would there be any point to a win32 port that only ran on reactos, but not on (say) XP? i assume not? |
| 13:54 | mlots | aj: Targeting ReactOS only makes sence. It'd be hard to get upstream support from Microsoft (or at least that's my impression). |
| 13:54 | nchip | neuro: well there is only one technical reason to have uclibc, it uses a low less memory |
| 13:54 | mlots | aj: Think of drivers that can't run on Linux... |
| 13:54 | aba | mlots: why is ReactOS better as kernel than say Linux? |
| 13:54 | mlots | aba: re above. ;-) |
| 13:55 | mlots | aba: and wine has some limitations because of Linux and XWindows. |
| 13:55 | DavidS | re uclibc: it's really nice for embedded systems where space is tight; and it'd be hard to have all necessary packages compiled against glibc _and_ uclibc... |
| 13:55 | neuro | nchip: why does a port of debian make sense for that? should it be instead of the glibc port, if that's how it's most often used? what functionality is lost by not using glibc? |
| 13:55 | aj | mlots: think of drivers that can't run on reactos? seems like linux would be more likely to have quality drivers than reactos? |
| 13:56 | mlots | aj: It's hard to quantify that. |
| 13:57 | aj | "wine has limitations because of linux and xwindows" ? |
| 13:57 | aj | reactos + wine is more capable than linux + wine? |
| 13:57 | nchip | neuro: I don't know. |
| 13:58 | mlots | aj: for userspace, sometimes. There are scheduler issues, graphics limitations, convertion requirements... |
| 13:58 | neuro | nchip: that's the sort of things that would need to be known before making a port of it. |
| 13:58 | aj | interesting |
| 13:58 | DavidS | neuro: see http://uclibc.org/FAQ.html#doesnt_suck for a short paragraph vs glibc |
| 13:59 | aj | mlots: so the obvious other purpose of a win32 port is so people running windows can "apt-get" a nice unix environment; i presume you could do that and support reactos at the same time? |
| 13:59 | mlots | aj: I beleive so. I'm not sure whether PE or ELF is the right way to go. |
| 13:59 | nchip | neuro: I'm not porting to atm. I'm interested in general issues about alternative libc's/userlands on the same kernel/physical arch |
| 14:00 | aj | DavidS, nchip: having a full port (kde, gnome, tetex) would seem insane; having a micro port (like udebs provide) may be interesting, but would need thought |
| 14:00 | mlots | aj: I'd rather just concentrait on ReactOS. Gives people more insentive to develop it. |
| 14:01 | nchip | here's some motivation behind it: https://www.debconf.org/comas/general/proposals/11 |
| 14:01 | mlots | aj: where would one draw the line for ulibc Not For Us? |
| 14:01 | DavidS | aj: yes, saving 30MB in the libc and then adding 300MB for KDE makes not much sense |
| 14:01 | aj | mlots: *shrug* that's one of the things that need thought :) |
| 14:02 | nchip | aj: with the same argument compiling kde for m68k is insane. |
| 14:03 | aj | nchip: m68k is (at least currently) a real port, so compiling kde is pretty much expected |
| 14:03 | mlots | aj: Why? |
| 14:03 | DavidS | another problem with uclibc is, that they are never ABI compatible between releases ... |
| 14:03 | aj | mlots: because that's what real ports do -- work the same no matter what hardware they're run on |
| 14:04 | nchip | DavidS: that's a big problem |
| 14:04 | mlots | aj: There's no memory or speed limitations for "real ports"? |
| 14:04 | aj | you could do patches to make "debian/rules binary ULIBC=yes" work for the apps people're actually interested in |
| 14:05 | aj | mlots: "can keep up with building kde" :) |
| 14:05 | mlots | aj: It seems that a port with limited resources (cpu, memory...) would still be useful. e.g. embeded systems. |
| 14:05 | mlots | aj: Perhaps that's different "class" of ports other than "real" though? |
| 14:05 | aj | mlots: (having the win32 port be usable by people running XP would pass the "is the port likely to be used by anyone?" criterion much more easily than a "must run reactos kernel" port) |
| 14:06 | mlots | aj: Yes, can the two be seperate though? |
| 14:06 | aj | mlots: yes, that would be an "embedded" port instead of a "real" one, which is entirely hypothetical at this point |
| 14:06 | mlots | It's hard to say has upstream support if the users aren't using the thing supported by upstream. |
| 14:06 | aj | mlots: not really -- an XP port would violate the SC; a reactos port might not pass the "useful?" test |
| 14:07 | nchip | aj: with that sentiment, embedded debian does not make much sense. it will be just easier to compile your own distro. |
| 14:07 | DavidS | nchip: libuclibc0 could be parallel-installed in different versions and the new bin-NMU capabilities of the buildd network mitigate the abi troubles |
| 14:07 | aj | nchip: huh? |
| 14:07 | aj | nchip: i'm all for m68k being an "embedded" or some other !real port, it just isn't that currently |
| 14:07 | mlots | nchip: Debian is one of the most used distro's for creating embeded enviromnents (or so I hear). Why not make it more easy? |
| 14:08 | aj | oh, right, debian/rules ym |
| 14:08 | mlots | aj: ReactOS is used by a reasonable sized community right now. |
| 14:09 | mlots | aj: I'd more like to get a win32 port to "second class citizen" at this point. |
| 14:09 | aj | mlots: XP is used by a much bigger community :) i mean, that's not a "no", but it seems silly not to make it useful for XP users if it can be |
| 14:09 | DavidS | nchip: but yes, testing migration would be a pain anyways :) |
| 14:10 | aj | mlots: can't you make XP run ELF binaries or whatever anyway? |
| 14:10 | nchip | mlots: I would like to make it easier |
| 14:10 | mlots | aj: I'm not sure. If it can't then there's a good reason for only supporting ReactOS (i.e. archive space). |
| 14:11 | aj | is PE that much bigger than ELF? |
| 14:11 | mlots | aj: sure if you need to recompile. |
| 14:11 | aj | ...? |
| 14:11 | nchip | mlots: but currently it seems that the familiar approach is gaining more momentum |
| 14:11 | aj | you have to recompile everything for a new arch anyway? |
| 14:11 | aj | or are you saying "just run the linux binaries" ? |
| 14:12 | mlots | aj: I'm saying just run the linux binaries in the same way that kfreebsd might. |
| 14:12 | aj | kfreebsd was going to have all its own binaries ttbomk |
| 14:13 | mlots | They're not linux binaries neccesarily? |
| 14:13 | aj | we were talking about the freebsd abi earlier, not the linux abi |
| 14:13 | aj | i didn't think any of them were linux binaries |
| 14:13 | aj | i may be mistaken |
| 14:13 | braindmg | mlots: we don't use the linux compat layer |
| 14:14 | nchip | In away, I'm more interested in how to get new archs to SCC, than debating if a certain combination of a arch/kernel/libc is sensible or not |
| 14:15 | neuro | nchip: you don't see how the two are related? |
| 14:16 | mlots | I guess I'm not sure if syscalls leak into binaries when things aren't compiled statically. |
| 14:16 | mlots | Anyway I agree with nchip, that's getting a bit into implementation. |
| 14:16 | nchip | neuro: does and arch to be included in SCC need to be known to be sensible? Isn't better to find out in the SCC phase how usefull it is |
| 14:17 | neuro | nchip: why does it need to be on the debian archive server to determine if it is sensical/useful or not? |
| 14:17 | mlots | Aren't most SCC's not sensible until they become part of the archive proper? |
| 14:17 | neuro | shouldn't that be done before adding it to the archive? |
| 14:17 | aj | nchip: no, they need to be sensible before being in the archive; that includes working out combinattions of kernel/ABI and assigning them to debian architectures in order to minimise the number of architectures, and also (hopefully) getting a stable ABI that won't need to be changed in future |
| 14:18 | mlots | aj: Does Hurd, sparc etc meet that? |
| 14:18 | aj | in so far as hurd doesn't meet it, it's questionable whether it should be in the archive |
| 14:19 | aj | i don't think sparc's had any major abi issues; certainly it's avoided needing a sparc64 port in parallel (or a sparcel/sparceb port, etc) |
| 14:19 | mlots | aj: It's a working port, it's useful to it's developers, it's useful to it's users. |
| 14:20 | mlots | aj: SCC shouldn't need A |
| 14:20 | mlots | ABI stability |
| 14:20 | nchip | neuro: I guess that depends on who does the work of maintaining SCC archive servers. |
| 14:20 | mlots | That's the point of having snapshots right? |
| 14:21 | aj | mlots: useful to users ==>. ABI stability. ABI instability ==>. screwing your users over |
| 14:21 | mlots | The ABI only has to be stable long enough to compile the relevant parts of the port's archive (granted, for c libaries that's most/all of it). |
| 14:21 | aj | mlots: that's fine for development, but not for use |
| 14:21 | nchip | neuro: but it would be a bit appalling to expect each porters to maintain the infrastructure outside debian |
| 14:21 | mlots | aj: If your users are developers... |
| 14:22 | aj | mlots: then your port isn't ready |
| 14:22 | DavidS | uclibcs two last releases were a year apart |
| 14:22 | mlots | aj: for scc? |
| 14:22 | mlots | aj: Debian tools make it easier to work on a port. |
| 14:22 | aj | mlots: yes; SCC == letting in other arches of at least m68k/hurd's standard; not lowering it further |
| 14:22 | mlots | aj: I'd say API stability is more important. |
| 14:23 | aba | mlots: look at e.g. amd64 - there are ports outside the main archive. Why not? |
| 14:23 | aj | mlots: that's fine, dak and debbugs are free software, you can setup your own while you stabalise your software |
| 14:23 | aba | aj: well, even bugs.d.o could be used to a large extend :) |
| 14:23 | aj | mlots: API stability is hopefully a given, there's the C standard and all |
| 14:24 | mlots | aj: so no SCC until a port can theoretically have two snapshots where one can upgrade from one to the other? |
| 14:24 | aj | mlots: yes, definitely |
| 14:25 | mlots | Should there be a requirement that users!=developers? (I hate to ask, but that seems to be the implication of what aj's saying). |
| 14:25 | * | aj makes that explicit |
| 14:26 | aj | even if your users are developers, you shouldn't screw them over with an unstable ABI |
| 14:26 | Greek0 | mlots: if you say all your users are the port developers, why do you want it to be an official debian arch (scc or not) already? |
| 14:26 | mlots | aj: are current accepted ports following users!=developers for their user counts? |
| 14:26 | Greek0 | I mean, an alioth project or something should be enough anyway for that period of time |
| 14:27 | mlots | Greek0: Infastructure. |
| 14:27 | aba | mlots: all ports reviewed by the release team had more than enough users anyways |
| 14:27 | mlots | Greek0: Didn't amd64 have problems using alioth? |
| 14:27 | Ganneff | mlots: the size of it, yes. |
| 14:27 | aba | mlots: and it was moved out due to too much space usage |
| 14:27 | aj | mlots: if you're so wonderful that everyone of your millions of users learns C and contributes back patches, that's not a black mark |
| 14:28 | aj | mlots: but if you then break the ABI for them, that is |
| 14:28 | mlots | Gannelf: So isn't that a problem for other ports? |
| 14:28 | Ganneff | mlots: only if they built all of debian, in testing and unstable and experimental |
| 14:29 | mlots | Ganneff: so three ports building one of those would be too much too? |
| 14:29 | aj | mlots: Stabilising your ABI isn't that tricky; at worst you just have to provide backwards compatability as Linux and glibc do |
| 14:29 | Ganneff | mlots: maybe. |
| 14:30 | neuro | making ftp-master run out of space for the port instead isn't really a win, either... |
| 14:30 | mlots | So third class citizen's might use alioth, lists.d.o, perhaps bugs.d.o? |
| 14:30 | aj | unstable ABIs also screw over mirrors and buildds |
| 14:30 | braindmg | aj: well even linux cannot provide backwards compat in all cases |
| 14:30 | aj | i'm not convinced arches that can't provide a stable ABI should be using shared resources at all |
| 14:30 | Ganneff | mlots: or any other machine out there. |
| 14:31 | Ganneff | mlots: if you have a machine and enough bandwith you just need the tools to run an archive. |
| 14:31 | aj | braindmg: absolute perfection isn't a requirement; if you meet or exceed Linux's standards, you're fine |
| 14:31 | Ganneff | mlots: and that is packaged stuff. |
| 14:31 | aj | i'm sorry, Linux/i386's standards |
| 14:32 | aj | i can't understand why anyone would want to try maintaining a port that randomly changes its exec format or libc regularly |
| 14:32 | Yoe | aj: you'll only meet that rule for Linux/i386 anyhow |
| 14:32 | Yoe | aj: other ports are by definition less tested |
| 14:32 | Yoe | than the most popular hardware architecture in the world |
| 14:33 | aj | Yoe: not breaking an ABI is easy -- don't remove stuff, only add to it |
| 14:33 | aj | Yoe: bugs are an entirely different matter |
| 14:33 | Yoe | aj: oh, right, missed that bit |
| 14:33 | Greek0 | mlots: I don't think it's that terrible difficult to setup the infrastructure you need compared to the other work to do for a successful port. and AIUI debian's infrastructure is currently quite near to being overloaded, so using that resources just because it's easier isn't probably the best idea |
| 14:33 | mlots | aj: If you're stable per snapshot then there's use. |
| 14:34 | aj | mlots: if you're stable permanently you can use it, you can upgrade it, and you can do 3rd party development on it |
| 14:35 | mlots | aj: I think the key argument is upgrade. |
| 14:35 | mlots | 3rd party development could be done against a snapshot. |
| 14:35 | aj | it would have to be done against /every/ snapshot, is the problem |
| 14:36 | mlots | aj: If snapshots are as far apart as releases (even at 18 months |
| 14:36 | mlots | that might not be a problem. |
| 14:36 | aj | just fix your abi once and for all |
| 14:37 | Yoe | mlots: I thought the idea is for snapshots to /not/ be so far away from eachother |
| 14:37 | aj | mlots: btw, who are you anyway? |
| 14:37 | nyu | wrt archive size problems, have you seen http://www.linuks.mine.nu/sizematters/ ? it claims we can save 29.3 % of archive space by using p7zip in .deb format |
| 14:37 | mlots | Did anyone have any comments about my installer comment? |
| 14:37 | mlots | aj: Drew Scott Daniels |
| 14:38 | mlots | nyu: Youc an save about 0.3% by reording the files inside the debs. |
| 14:38 | nyu | interesting |
| 14:38 | nyu | you mean in the tar? |
| 14:38 | Greek0 | nyu: as it was pointed out on debian-devel, p7zip is not an option as long as dpkg in stable doesn't support it. so we could only use it for etch+1 |
| 14:38 | mlots | nyu: yup. I've got code that proves it for the linux kernel. |
| 14:38 | Yoe | mlots: there's a serious difference between 29.3% and 0.3% |
| 14:39 | mlots | ppmd is better than p7zip for compression. See compression.ca or maximumcompression (.info?) |
| 14:39 | Yoe | though of course the reordering doesn't require dpkg code changes to be able to unpack later on |
| 14:39 | nyu | Greek0: right. i'm on it (i sent patch to tar already) |
| 14:39 | nyu | mlots: URL? |
| 14:39 | nyu | ah |
| 14:39 | mlots | nyu: for my code? |
| 14:40 | nyu | mlots: is it free? |
| 14:40 | mlots | nyu: I haven't released my code yet. |
| 14:40 | mlots | nyu: ppmd is in Debian. |
| 14:41 | nyu | i'll have a look, thanks |
| 14:42 | Q_ | mlots: ppmd also doesn't work on 64 bit arches. |
| 14:42 | mlots | aj: Is an arch specific installer good enough for first class? |
| 14:43 | mlots | Q_: Yup. It could be ported though. |
| 14:43 | nyu | aj: and if not, is it for second? :) |
| 14:43 | mlots | The trouble with switching to 7zip or ppmd etc is that it might raise the mimimum system requirements. |
| 14:45 | nyu | i think an i486 is still faster at uncompressing than average internet connection at downloading |
| 14:45 | mlots | nyu: how about CD? |
| 14:45 | nyu | CD access is usualy faster when the data you're reading is compressed, too |
| 14:45 | mlots | nyu: See compression.ca's speed vs size comparison. |
| 14:45 | aj | mlots, nyu: it needs to be a working installer, otherwise i don't see a problem |
| 14:45 | Q_ | nyu: So what is an average internet connection nowadays? |
| 14:45 | nyu | maybe not for i486 though |
| 14:47 | aj | you could always include p7zip and a (minimally) updated dpkg in a point release |
| 14:47 | Q_ | (And it doesn't download and decompress at the same time anyway.) |
| 14:47 | mlots | More compression does not nessiarily mean more time needed to decompress. |
| 14:48 | nyu | mlots: any idea how to contact this guy? FLAC is missing in the audio comparison |
| 14:48 | mlots | It'd be worth considering p7zip's decompression requirements. |
| 14:48 | mlots | nyu: Use his e-mail address or try it yourself. |
| 14:49 | mlots | nyu: maximumcompression was more up to date last time I checked. |
| 14:49 | nyu | no public email it seems |
| 14:49 | mlots | I read a review showing that FLAC sucks compaired to some general purpose compressers. |
| 14:49 | nyu | i'll dig around |
| 14:50 | Greek0 | aj: hmm. is this compatible with the "support updates from oldstable ->. stable" policy? I mean what if someone installed sarge, never updated (ok.. probably unlikely and surely dumb, but anyway), and then wanted to update to etch when it's released? |
| 14:50 | nyu | mlots: the sound comparison is not for general-purpose |
| 14:50 | mlots | nyu: whois compression.ca? |
| 14:50 | nyu | mlots: ah |
| 14:50 | nyu | mlots: really? where's that |
| 14:50 | Q_ | Greek0: So they should first upgrade to sarge, then to etch. |
| 14:50 | aj | Q_: they first upgrade to sarge's dpkg, and install p7zip |
| 14:51 | mlots | Greek0: I think we violated that for woody->sarge. |
| 14:51 | mlots | nyu: maximumcompression.info or something. |
| 14:51 | Greek0 | Q_: i.e. to "sarge+stable-security+stable-proposed-updates" or something like this? |
| 14:51 | Q_ | aj: You're saying we support upgrading from stable - 2 to stable? |
| 14:51 | aj | i don't think we've got that sort of policy anyway -- we don't do security updates for people still running oldstable at that point, eg |
| 14:52 | mlots | Greek0: I think that's the case for point releases only. |
| 14:53 | aj | Q_: not particularly, but in this case how to do it by hand is pretty easy |
| 14:54 | mlots | aj: Could a SCC or first class citizen be not "real", but embeded? |
| 14:55 | nyu | mlots: i can't see any reference to 7zip there |
| 14:56 | mlots | nyu: the files should be available for compression.ca so you could give it a try. |
| 14:56 | pkern | nyu: "7-zip"? |
| 14:56 | aj | mlots: i'm not sure what it would mean for an embedded architecture to be a release candidate |
| 14:56 | aj | mlots: though udebs essentially make up a parallel set of "embedded" architectures |
| 14:58 | mlots | aj: I guess it could be given that it'd meet the built requirement through not-for-us? |
| 14:58 | mlots | aj: I'm not talking about udebs. |
| 14:58 | nyu | pkern: www.7-zip.org, p7zip.sf.net |
| 14:59 | nyu | btw, http://www.7-zip.org/ claims 7z outperforms ppmd (but that source is not impartial) |
| 14:59 | aj | mlots: i'm not sure it wouldn't make more sense to have a different "built requirement" for "embedded" arches |
| 15:00 | nyu | http://www.compression.ru/ybs/e&docs.htm |
| 15:00 | mlots | nyu: what about paq5? There's new compressers all the time. |
| 15:01 | mlots | aj: I'd say properly using not-for-us makes more sence than lowering the % requirement. |
| 15:01 | mlots | aj: less buildd time wasted. |
| 15:02 | aj | doing lots of not-for-us when the package could build is cheating for the archive %ge requirement |
| 15:03 | aj | but for an embedded arch, building a certain set of packages might still be a useful requirement; i don't really know |
| 15:03 | aj | until we've got an arch that it makes sense to consider "embedded" instead of "real", there's not much point trying to go into any detail |
| 15:03 | mlots | nyu: If a case for a new compresser is made, one needs to consider: - space savings, - decompression time, -decompression memory requirements, - somewhat reasonable compression requirements such that devs are willing to use it. |
| 15:03 | mlots | aj: m86k? |
| 15:04 | mlots | 'r m68k? |
| 15:04 | Yoe | mlots: we're not going to do that any time soon |
| 15:04 | nyu | mlots: right |
| 15:04 | nyu | mlots: but first, you have to consider patching dpkg ;) |
| 15:05 | nyu | s/dpkg/tar/g |
| 15:05 | aj | dpkg has already been patched for bz2 aiui; p7zip should be trivial |
| 15:05 | nyu | then dpkg |
| 15:05 | Q_ | arm* looks more like an arch that might be an embedded one. |
| 15:05 | nyu | aj: yes, but i don't want to send a patch that makes dpkg pipe() itself and exec tar/p7zip separately |
| 15:05 | aj | there are actual arm workstations on the market today though |
| 15:05 | nyu | tar needs fixing first |
| 15:06 | aj | nyu: *shrug* it's not brain surgery |
| 15:06 | Yoe | mlots: if you're interested in the specifics, we'd have to switch to something that works on ColdFire before making it an 'embedded' arch is going to be any useful |
| 15:06 | mlots | nyu: what fixing? file reordering? putting the new compression into tar's code? |
| 15:07 | Yoe | mlots: and once we reach that point, we might as well stick to being a full arch, since coldfire CPUs are much faster than the 'classic' m68k ones |
| 15:07 | vorlon | are arm workstations anything more than glorified devel systems for embedded work, though? |
| 15:08 | Yoe | vorlon: those were intended for being of more use, yes |
| 15:08 | nchip | arm workstation I know of are riscpc replacements |
| 15:08 | vorlon | ok |
| 15:08 | vorlon | (somehow I doubt many people *use* them for anything other than devel systems for embedded work, but. :) |
| 15:09 | nyu | mlots: p7zip support |
| 15:09 | nyu | aj: no, it's more like planting rice |
| 15:09 | nyu | you have to wait till it grows |
| 15:09 | nchip | usually people crosscompile for embedded work. powerpc people are lucky enough they have a excuse to get nice devel systems from apple |
| 15:10 | aj | nyu: huh? it's changing a few dozen lines of code, it's an undergrad exercise, geez. |
| 15:10 | nyu | aj: it's ugly |
| 15:10 | nyu | i want to get tar fixed first |
| 15:10 | aj | that was including changing tar |
| 15:11 | nyu | i have a patch for tar already |
| 15:11 | nyu | the difficult part is getting it applied :) |
| 15:11 | nyu | then send a patch for dpkg and wait again |
| 15:13 | braindmg | aj: so are there plans to remove any arch from the archive? |
| 15:15 | aj | braindmg: yes, sh. |
| 15:15 | Yoe | yeah, that'd make total sense |
| 15:15 | Yoe | is there actually still any binary in the archive which is sh and up-to-date? |
| 15:15 | aj | i don't think there are any sh binaries in the archive, up to date or not |
| 15:16 | aj | it's all arch:all |
| 15:16 | mlots | scc requirements are basically: more useful than an existing scc, or signifigant(?) interest in a scc when there's theoreticaly extra infrastrucure space / man hours available? |
| 15:17 | aj | "scc" isn't really a good term to use |
| 15:17 | aj | requirements for going in the archive are basically: useful, maintained, stable |
| 15:18 | aj | maybe s/maintained/supportable/ |
| 15:18 | nchip | "ports" would be quite neutral |
| 15:18 | mlots | stable as in abi, and runtime? |
| 15:19 | Yoe | aj: okay, and when the thing is stable, but would need an ABI update after having been in the archive for years. What's going to happen? It remains there, or it gets kicked out until the ABI's fixed again? |
| 15:19 | braindmg | even linux-i386 may need that eventually |
| 15:20 | aj | linux-i386 has gone through a few ABI changes (a.out to ELF, libc5 to libc6, libc6 to libc6 for that matter), it just maintains backwards compatability |
| 15:21 | aj | if your arch isn't worth the effort to do the ABI change in a backwards compatible manner, you're giving yourself a hard time arguing that it's worth including in the archive |
| 15:21 | aj | cf the hurd |
| 15:21 | Yoe | aj: to get this a bit more specific, |
| 15:21 | braindmg | aj: what about the hurd? |
| 15:21 | Yoe | the example I gave about the ColdFire move earlier isn't just hypothetical |
| 15:22 | Yoe | aj: I've been talking to rwhitby, who works at freescale, to see whether we'd be able to get a few eval boards to port Debian/m68k over to them |
| 15:22 | nchip | aj: debian was *much* smaller and had only i386 then, so a completly library rename made sense. |
| 15:22 | Yoe | they're a factor 5 or so faster than what we currently support |
| 15:23 | aj | nchip: a library rename is how we do these things in a backwards compatible manner |
| 15:23 | Yoe | but their instruction set is smaller, so we'd need to replace everything we have currently before it'll work. |
| 15:23 | nchip | aj: most people are going to object renaming all libs beginning from libc6 only for a minor archs abi transition |
| 15:23 | aj | nchip: so do it just for your arch, working out how to make it easy for everyone *shrug* |
| 15:24 | aj | Yoe: that sounds like it'd be fairly straightforward to do compatibly? |
| 15:25 | nchip | aj: with a new arch name. backward compatability if needed can be solved with multiarch. |
| 15:25 | Yoe | aj: yes, but it might be fairly lot of work, with much binNMUs and such |
| 15:25 | aj | nchip: a new arch name is a horrible idea |
| 15:26 | Yoe | aj: also, because of the instruction set having new instructions as well as losing old ones, I'm not entirely sure it's going to be possible to do this in a backwards-compatible way |
| 15:26 | mlots | aj: I'd like scc infrastructure to grow at the same rate as first class. |
| 15:26 | Yoe | though I can't be sure before I've tested it on the hardware |
| 15:26 | nchip | aj: that's your opinion. I think library rename for one arch is way worse. |
| 15:27 | nchip | aj: new arch name only involves porters of the said arch. library transition affects every debian users and needs handwork for every library maintainer |
| 15:27 | mlots | I'm not just talking about archive space. Also machiens, bandwidth, potentialy man hours... |
| 15:27 | aj | nchip: new arch names involve every single user of the arch, and are a ridiculous waste of disk space and bandwidth, sorry, no. |
| 15:28 | aj | mlots: stop thinking in terms of "scc" |
| 15:28 | aj | mlots: the only actual difference looks likely to be between release candidates and non release candidates for the time being; and the only different infrastructure between those two will be the testing scripts and stable support |
| 15:28 | nchip | aj: then we'll just stop caring about your official debian. sorry. |
| 15:29 | vorlon | aj: only a ridiculous waste of disk space if you keep the old arch around in testing/unstable, which it doesn't seem you would want to do? |
| 15:30 | nchip | ..since we are expected to maintain all the infra outside debian anyway, it does not seem like a big step anyway. |
| 15:30 | mlots | aj: but then there's now the third, those that don't make it into the archive... I get your point though. |
| 15:30 | aj | vorlon: you'd probably need to while the new arch was being repopulated, which would likely take a few weeks, then you've got to worry about supporting the people who aren't in a position to upgrade immediately |
| 15:32 | Greek0 | nchip: debian doesn't have infinite resources. I think noone objects your stuff going into the archive if you have enough users, are willing to maintain your port, and it doesn't add a huge burden of another kind on debian. |
| 15:34 | vorlon | aj: would that really be much different, disk-wise, than changing the names of all the libraries, since the latter means recompiling everything and essentially having disparate package sets in testing and unstable for a period? |
| 15:34 | Greek0 | but whining about "debian doesn't support us" when you have hardly any users and there seems to be quite a cost involved for debian seems a bit questionable. |
| 15:34 | aj | one of the major concerns is b/w from ftp-master; ABI bumping a port costs about 10-15GB; we usually try to limit pulses to about 2GB per day |
| 15:34 | braindmg | and I can understand that for the mirrors infra but having a new ports (or second class or whatever) ports.debian.org would make life way easier |
| 15:34 | Yoe | Greek0: uhh, Debian/arm does have quite some users, actually |
| 15:35 | aj | vorlon: if you do it compatibly you don't need to do it all at once, and potentially don't need to do it at all |
| 15:35 | aj | having a second set of infrastructure to maintain would make life twice as hard, thanks all the same |
| 15:35 | Greek0 | Yoe: is this what nchip is talking about? I didn't really get it what his "pet port" was, sorry |
| 15:36 | nchip | ...potentially don't need to do it at all |
| 15:36 | Yoe | Greek0: I happen to know what nchip works on. That helps :) |
| 15:36 | vorlon | I'm not sure how you'd do it compatibly, though? There's certainly no precedent within Debian of maintaining such compatibility through an ABI transition |
| 15:37 | aj | vorlon: eh? we did with libc5/libc6 |
| 15:37 | braindmg | aj: for all arches |
| 15:37 | aj | vorlon: there were some rumours of an hppa ABI change a little while ago, iirc, what happened with it? |
| 15:37 | nchip | 17:22 (nchip) aj: debian was *much* smaller and had only i386 then, so a completly library rename made sense. |
| 15:37 | mlots | aj: I agree, a second set of infrastructure to maintain would make life twice as hard. That's the case with non-release and non-archive. |
| 15:37 | vorlon | Package: libpam0g |
| 15:37 | vorlon | Conflicts: libpam0 (<= 0.56-2), libpam |
| 15:38 | aj | oh, debian didn't have only i386 then, it at least had m68k and i think maybe sparc and alpha? |
| 15:38 | vorlon | aj: ^^^ doesn't seem like the kind of thing that happens piecemeal |
| 15:38 | nchip | hrmh ok. but still it was necessary for all the archs. |
| 15:38 | Greek0 | Yoe: hehe. just that "stop caring about official debian" phrase reminded me of the gnu/solaris people (no offense) |
| 15:38 | braindmg | mlots: and replicating the infra and work for each new/external port |
| 15:38 | Yoe | Greek0: heh |
| 15:40 | aj | mlots: no, non-release go with all the other architectures, they just don't release |
| 15:40 | mlots | I can see the annoyance with getting bugs against your package for a port that would take time to maintain. |
| 15:40 | aj | mlots: non-archive stuff just needs to have a stable ABI, which really isn't that hard |
| 15:41 | mlots | aj: non-release wouldn't get the benifit of "testing" or the testing scripts... I guess they'd still be able to grab all the packages after release? |
| 15:43 | aj | mlots: there are other things that could be done beyond unstable and experimental, but i'm not going to talk about that until there's an /actual example/ |
| 15:43 | nchip | what archs now have their own external infra? this stuff could benefit from co-operation. |
| 15:43 | mlots | I guess non-release could still have "testing"/"stable" buildd, and security support? |
| 15:43 | aj | at present, the only non-release architecture is hurd-i386, which currently has 4k packages in the archive, compared to ~24k for every other architecture in the archive |
| 15:44 | nyu | Greek0: gnu/solaris is much worse than just "no official repository" |
| 15:44 | mlots | aj: amd64 released sarge after Debian and didn't use the testing script? |
| 15:45 | Q_ | amd64 doesn't use britney, which makes it rather hard for us to have a real testing. |
| 15:45 | Ganneff | mlots: we are on a different machine, we dont use britney. |
| 15:45 | Ganneff | we have some own scripts, fetching the data from ftp-master and running a little "mini-britney", basically following i386 testing |
| 15:45 | aj | had we had appropriate criteria in place, and changes to our mirroring, amd64 would've been in the archive and a release candidate years ago |
| 15:45 | Greek0 | nyu: I followed the whole tragedy. I also didn't mean to imply that anyone here works on that port or hase the same attitude as the people that do. just that single statement remembered me of this issue. |
| 15:46 | Q_ | aj: So what still needs to happen for the mirroring changes? |
| 15:46 | mlots | That's my point. non-release could grab a list of packages from stable or testing and build them later right? |
| 15:46 | braindmg | nchip: amd64 kfreebsd-i386 knetbsd-i386 hurd-i386 at least |
| 15:47 | mlots | That's mini-britney? Or is mini-briteny something else? |
| 15:48 | aj | Q_: work out exactly what mirrors should do; tell mirrors what they should do; wait for mirrors to do that |
| 15:48 | Ganneff | mini-britney is a shell script. |
| 15:48 | nyu | Greek0: they have an attitude? I thought they simply worked in their own, separate world |
| 15:48 | nyu | Greek0: is there a single nexenta patch in bts? :) |
| 15:48 | aj | mlots: if you're going to try mimicing the release stuff, you should just be a release arch. the requirements really aren't that challenging |
| 15:48 | nyu | nchip: and armeb |
| 15:49 | nyu | hurd-i386 is in sid |
| 15:49 | nyu | and knetbsd-i386 is.. well, dead ;) |
| 15:49 | mlots | aj: Doing it on time with limited man hours is a challenge. |
| 15:49 | braindmg | nyu: it needs some stuff for which maintainers have not integrated the patches |
| 15:49 | braindmg | nyu: the infra is there ;> |
| 15:50 | nyu | braindmg: heh yes it is |
| 15:50 | aj | mlots: so get more users, and thus more developers |
| 15:50 | Greek0 | nyu: attitude, as in: mindset, behavior, .. |
| 15:50 | Q_ | aj: The "work out what mirrors should do" part is rather vague. |
| 15:51 | nyu | Greek0: yes. their behaviour from our POV can be cathegorised as non-behaviour ;) |
| 15:51 | aj | mlots: the only real difficulty is when the hardware's difficult to come by and you can't get users, i guess |
| 15:51 | mlots | aj: creating a "sarge" snapshot for a port is useful as it limits the non-port RC bugs that ones needs to deal with. |
| 15:51 | Q_ | They should have some easy script to select which aches they want to have on the mirror? |
| 15:52 | Q_ | aj: Your blog also said something about making dak scripts better to handle the load? Can you get into more specifics about that? |
| 15:53 | aj | Q_: apt-ftparchive does too much stat'ing, rather than just using its cache; i think there was something else along those lines too |
| 15:54 | mlots | Well I gotta go to work. Thanks for the discussion. I hope to read the transcript of the rest later. bye |
| 15:54 | aj | Q_: there's already a reasonably easy script, it's more the issue of making it easy for people to find a (eg) m68k mirror when the country mirror only had i386 eg |
| 15:54 | DavidS | aj: how much work would it be to split out non-mirrored .debs into /pool-non-mirrored/ or something, which can be easily excluded by those mirror -ops who don't want it? |
| 15:55 | Q_ | aj: Atleast in d-i, it lists which arches are on each mirror. |
| 15:55 | aj | insanely painful, since it'd involve moving GBs of data around in a mirror pulse? |
| 15:55 | braindmg | DavidS: and then people that want to mirror the non-mirrored? ;) |
| 15:56 | aj | anyway, everything gets mirrored by someone, just not most people |
| 15:56 | Q_ | aj: And http://www.debian.org/mirror/list seems to list the arches too. |
| 15:56 | DavidS | braindmg: well, nobody who wants to waste disk space should be hindered ;) |
| 15:57 | aj | so are these questions just out of curiousity, or should i be taking down names for my "to be volunteered for mirror maintenance jobs" list? |
| 15:57 | DavidS | aj: and only uploading new packages to the new locations? probably defeats the "simple" approach by too much complexity in programming :( |
| 15:58 | aj | DavidS: well, that's what happened for the move from dists/ to pool/, but i don't see the point? |
| 15:58 | Q_ | aj: Well, both curiousity, and I'd like to help if I can. |
| 15:58 | aj | DavidS: there's already an rsync-based script that'll do partial mirrors, and with some archive support, something like rsync --delay-updates --files-from:indices/arch-i386.lst --delete-after # should work |
| 15:59 | DavidS | aj: just brainstorming. point being: easy separation of seldom downloaded archs for easier capping of mirror disk usage and b/w |
| 16:00 | DavidS | aj: then the whole discussion around "we haven't enough mirror b/w and disk" goes out the chimney, isn't it? |
| 16:00 | aj | how so? |
| 16:01 | aj | mirroring all architectures (which is what we currently expect of pushed mirrors and top level country mirrors) is 160GB or so, an arch-specific mirror including arch:all and source is about 20GB |
| 16:02 | Q_ | Seems to be at 164GB now. |
| 16:03 | aj | yick |
| 16:07 | vorlon | we need to get on jvw to remove more stuff |
| 16:08 | nyu | unrar |
| 16:08 | *nyu | hides |