On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 01:57:48PM +0000, Wookey wrote: > > So where does that leave us for etch? Does a mono that doesn't run on > > netwinders and apparently not on smackdown either, but does run on other > > cats systems, make the grade for release? If no one has time to investigate > > the problem on netwinder, that at least suggests to me that netwinder isn't > > that important a use case for the porters and probably not the users either.
> > Does the "TLS emulation" diagnosis imply a bug elsewhere in the kernel or > > glibc rather than in mono? > > Anyway, our three real choices here are: > > - mono support on netwinder is not RC in the porters' estimation, so the bug > > can be downgraded or etch-ignored > > - mono support on netwinder is RC in the porters' estimation, but no one has > > time to work on this problem, so the arm binaries should be removed from > > the archive for the release > > - mono support on netwinder is RC in the porters' estimation, and there is a > > porter with the know-how and time to fix this bug who is volunteering to > > have me nag them once every other day until it's fixed ;) > > If we are still missing information for the porters to decide whether this > > should be RC, what can I do to help get that information? > OK. I don't have a netwinder to test on (tbm took mine), and probably > don't have sufficient expertise either. This failure is extremely > odd. I think we should etch-ignore this bug, it's not ideal, but > no-one is rushing forward to fix it, and netwinders will become less > important during this release. Their use as buildds is the main reason > it's a problem in practice - can we arrange to only have this built on > the non-netwinder machines? Yes, getting the package built on non-netwinders should not be a problem -- and the autobuilder for stable is a cats box. I agree that if the problem is specific to netwinder, there's probably no sense in treating this as release-critical. But does anyone understand yet *why* this bug affects the netwinders and not the cats boxes? > Removing mono from arm for this release entirely seems worse than > having a version which does work on some(?)/most(?) hardware. My biggest worry is that this is not a hardware issue at all but a kernel issue, and we'll be bitten post-release when the kernels on the autobuilders are changed. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
