[Pkg-octave-devel] [buildd-tools-devel] octave3.2 autobuild problems

[Thomas Weber]

[Dropping some lists, as this is probably of no interest to them.]

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 10:24:09PM +0200, Thomas Weber wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 07:10:41PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 08:26:43PM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 02:04:24PM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 12:53:19PM +0200, Thomas Weber wrote:
> > > > > > correct. It might have something to do with what packages have been unpacked
> > > > > > before octave 3.2 postinst is run.
> > > 
> > > > > Can you make the build log(s) available up until the hang (I assume there
> > > > > is such a thing, but I'm not familiar with buildd's handling of blocking
> > > > > builds). If possible, for octave-audio, but I'll take whatever you have,
> > > > > obviously :)
> > > 
> > > > experimental build logs can be found from experimental.debian.net:
> > > 
> > > > http://experimental.debian.net/fetch.php?&pkg=octave-audio&ver=1.1.4-1&arch=armel&stamp=1248003676&file=log&as=raw
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I can't reproduce this in a chroot. However, I can reproduce it
> > > with the sbuild. both installing octave3.2 and running by hand:
> > > 
> > > octave-3.2.0-silent --no-history --no-init-file --eval "pkg ('rebuild');"
> > > 
> > > work just fine. But during the install of octave3.2 when doing
> > > 
> > > 	sbuild -d experimental octave-audio_1.1.4-1
> > > 
> > > octave hangs on the above command during postinst! notice that experimental
> > > buildd's use a old sbuild patched for experimental:
> > 
> > Yes.  We have included some changes to better support dependency
> > resolution when building experimental packages.  However, we haven't
> > AFAIK included all the changes yet.  I'll be happy to integrate them;
> > I just need the patches.
> > 
> > Is it known what the postinst is blocking on?  What's happening here
> > that's different between the unstable and experimental sbuilds?
> The best guess in #524745 was something with open file descriptors.
> 
> 	Thomas

I would like to continue uploading octave-forge packages to
experimental, if only to get some build/testing coverage (these are the
first uploads using octave3.2).

Now, I realize this generates lots of work for you. Should I drop armel
from the architecture's list for these uploads to experimental?

I'm open for other suggestions, obviously.

	Thomas