Re: RE: src:exempi: fails to migrate to testing for too long: FTBFS on s390x

Hi Dipak,

On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 09:57:44 +0000 Dipak Zope1 <[email protected]> wrote:
> Apologies for late response. It looks like the issue is related to the synchronization between atop and atopacctd. I am looking into it further and will keep this thread updated.

I think we established that you replied here but had the other bug in 
mind (in atop).

> I am looking forward to have a fix for this for s390x.

Can you still look into the exempi issue in this bug report?

> On 30/08/22, 12:44 AM, "Paul Gevers" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Michael
> 
> On 29-08-2022 14:23, Michael Biebl wrote:
> > As you are probably aware, this issue is known and tracked in [1].
> 
> Which I added as a blocker and mentioned in my message, so yes.
> 
> > The
> > package FTBFS after enabling the test suite. I raised this issue
> > upstream but there is no real interest/motivation [2] on their part to
> > address these (most likely endianess related) issues.
> > So I informed the s390x porters as well but got not feedback so far.
> 
> Ack, I saw the latter part.
> 
> > To me it seems it's better to not continue ship a known broken package
> > on s390x and think a partial architecture removal is probably the better
> > alternative.
> 
> If you think the package indeed is severely broken, then removal sounds
> best. If its broken in some less common use cases, it may be OK to leave
> it for now (skipping those tests on 390x) and let the porters have a
> look when they have time.
> 
> > Let me know what you think
> 
> It all depends on how broken it is. If you would consider the bugs found
> by the tests RC, then removal is the better choice unless a porter steps
> up to fix it. If the bugs would be important at most, than skipping
> broken tests on s390x sounds like the better option. Removal bugs are
> hard to time predict.
> 
> Paul
> 
> PS: I would not disable building on s390x if you have the test suite
> finding out severe problems (as the d/control file doesn't have negated
> architecture fields yet). Just getting the binary removed and FTBFS will
> prevent the architecture from building again.

Otherwise I think we need to go this route.

Paul