Re: debian-ports.org getting relatively unstable (hppa)

On 12/15/13 3:54 AM, Helge Deller wrote:
> On 12/15/2013 06:32 AM, Dave Land wrote:
>> Not sure what's up at debian-ports.org, but I've been trying to
>> debootstrap 2 different HPPA machines for the last couple days and
>> have been getting a variety of errors (size mismatches, files not
>> found when they were there 20 minutes before, etc. etc.) Somebody may
>> want to look into this before it gets out of hand. Thanks! :)
>
> I maybe should add some more background here, and maybe someone
> here on the list might have an idea on how to proceed.
>
> Background is, that Dave and myself have binmnu-uploaded the necessary
> packages for hppa so that debootstrap worked. Then we proceeded with the necessary
> packages for sbuild and schroot, so that I now have a buildd installed
> which should be able to start building packages. I haven't turned it
> on yet though for the reasons which I explain in a few seconds...
>
> In the meantime we have of course uploaded a few more packages which
> now currently break debootstrap. This is fixable manually, but I instead
> of uploading packages manually now, I would prefer to get the buildd
> going instead... So, Dave Land, please wait a little bit...
>
> Now to the reasons why I didn't turned on the buildd yet:
> We noticed, that when we manually binmnu-upload packages, which are
> already in the *same version* on debian-ports, then debian-ports ACCEPT
> those packages, but if we then try to apt-get-update those later on, this leads
> to a "size mismatch" error. I do have the feeling, that this is a
> problem on debian-ports. I noticed for example that reprepro usually
> doesn't accept packages of the same version which doesn't seem to be
> the case on debian-ports.
> So, I'm anxious, that if I start the buildd, it will happily build and upload packages
> which we already uploaded to debian-ports. If this happens we will get more
> size-mismatch errors.
>
> A trivial example:
> On machine buildd.debian-ports.org I run:
> deller@leda:~$ wb info hello . hppa
> * hello/hppa
>    | hello:
>    |   Package             : hello
>    |   Version             : 2.8-4
>    |   State               : Needs-Build
>    |   Section             : devel
>    |   Priority            : source
>    |   Previous-State      :
>    |   State-Change        : 2013-02-18 00:03:36.782007
>    |   CalculatedPri       : 52
>    |   component           : main
>    |   Distribution        : sid
>    |   Notes               : out-of-date
>    |   State-Days          : 300
>    |   State-Time          : 25958430
>
> So, the package "hello" would need a rebuild according to the wanna-build database,
> and that would wb probably tell my buildd who then would start building/uploading it.
> But on http://ftp.debian-ports.org/debian/pool-hppa/main/h/hello/ you can
> see, that the hello-package is already uploaded at version 2.8-4
> So, if my buildd now uploads the newly created hello package, I'm sure
> we will run again into the size-mismatch problem.
>
> Now, Aurelien mentioned last week to me, that this size-mismatch error
> might be because of the "apt-ftparchive cache might have been corrupted for hppa".
> I'm not 100% sure about that.
>
> My question here on the list would be, if you (other arch-porters) do have an idea
> on how I should proceed.
> Best solution would probably be, if the wanna-build database rescans what's in
> the archive already. Is this possible?
> Or, should I just start the buildd and see what's happening? If we then get
> the size-mismatch errors there is lot of manual work to fix it (unless resetting the
> apt-ftparchive on debian-ports would solve this).
> Any other ideas?
>
> Helge
>
>
Thanks Helge,
I'll just put the A500 on standby for a while until things stabilize a 
bit. I saw Thorsten Glaser's comments over in the debian-ports list, and 
although it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, since I don't fully 
understand how packages get processed at the repository when the buildd 
server uploads (or somebody manually uploads). It seems odd that 
debian-ports would accept a package with the same name/version number... 
unless it's looking at the md5 signature instead of the filename?? Is 
that even possible? I would think those would be unique for each file 
uploaded. Might be a solution to rework things where the server would 
look at the filename *and* the md5 sig to determine if the filename 
would need to be auto-incremented to the next iteration/update (e.g. 
hello-2.1.1-1 to hello-2.1.1-2)

Just a thought... I'll check back later. :)

Dave L.

-- 

-- 
Dave Land
Land Computer Service  [email protected]
ICQ: 676030523