On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 01:48:28PM +0200, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
> Hi Steve (and all of Ubuntu-dev),
> so far things almost worked as expected :-)
> The change for openmp [1] worked and migrated to groovy-release.
> The new dependency worked as well and germinate [2] now reports to no
> more pull in rdma-core on i386.
> But on the subsequent sync of rdma-core [3] I see i386 is still trying
> to be built.
> So I face the obvious "missing build on i386: ibacm, ..." [4] in update-excuses.
> I wonder what to do now, is this another case not yet documented in [5]?
> Do I need to call for an archive admin to update the "effective
> whitelist" accordingly?
Yes, that's exactly what needs to happen. The whitelist is not
automatically updated, it requires an archive admin to review any
autogenerated changes and commit them.
I've rerun the script now, and rdma-core has dropped out of the whitelist.
We will then also have to remove the rdma-core binaries on i386 in the
release pocket.
> Thanks in advance,
> Christian
>
> [1]: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openmpi/4.0.3-6ubuntu2
> [2]: https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/germinate-output/i386.groovy/i386+build-depends
> [3]: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/rdma-core/29.0-1
> [4]: https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_excuses.html
> [5]: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/i386
>
> > > > But then I have realized that while there are not more runtime
> > > > dependencies, build dependencies in i386 seem to be quite a lot still
> > > > (reverse-depends --release=groovy --arch=i386 --build-dep
> > > > src:rdma-core shows 41).
> > >
> > > As far as I know these are all false-positives; I don't know that
> > > reverse-depends --build-dep --arch=foo ever does anything useful.
> > > Spot-checking the output, I see that most of these packages only have arch:
> > > all packages published on i386.
> > >
> > > > With this mail I'd look for:
> > > > a) general guidance on `is the effective i386 build = whitelist + build-deps`
> > > > b) feedback on the suggestion to remove the rdma-core build dep on
> > > > openmpi; or would all 41 build-deps have to go away?
> > > > c) other alternatives
> > >
> > > > The answers to (a) we could add to the wiki [4].
> > > > The answers to (b)+(c) will hopefully help me to go on with this, it
> > > > might eventually come down to keeping the current Delta (trivial) in
> > > > rdma-core, but along the way understanding the inner workings better
> > > > would be great.
> > > >
> > > > [1]: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/rdma-core/28.0-1ubuntu1
> > > > [2]: https://github.com/linux-rdma/rdma-core/pull/756#issuecomment-630138899
> > > > [3]: https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/community-process-for-32-bit-compatibility/12598
> > > > [4]: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/i386
> > > > [5]: https://git.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-core-dev/ubuntu-seeds/+git/i386/tree/i386
> > > > [6]: https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/germinate-output/i386.focal/i386+build-depends.sources
> > >
> > > --
> > > Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
> > > Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
> > > Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/
> > > slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Christian Ehrhardt
> > Staff Engineer, Ubuntu Server
> > Canonical Ltd
>
>
>
> --
> Christian Ehrhardt
> Staff Engineer, Ubuntu Server
> Canonical Ltd
>
> --
> ubuntu-devel mailing list
> ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
