Re: Proposed MBF: packages that FTBFS with make --shuffle

2025-05-17 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
On 17/05/25 at 02:53 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Santiago Vila (2025-05-17): > > El 17/5/25 a las 1:13, Cyril Brulebois escribió: > > > Soren Stoutner (2025-05-05): > > > > Filing these bug reports sounds like a good idea to me. I don’t see > > > > any reason to wait as these will be severit

Re: Proposed MBF: packages that FTBFS with make --shuffle

2025-05-16 Thread Cyril Brulebois
Santiago Vila (2025-05-17): > El 17/5/25 a las 1:13, Cyril Brulebois escribió: > > Soren Stoutner (2025-05-05): > > > Filing these bug reports sounds like a good idea to me. I don’t see > > > any reason to wait as these will be severity:minor, so they won’t > > > interfere with the trixie releas

Re: Proposed MBF: packages that FTBFS with make --shuffle

2025-05-16 Thread Santiago Vila
El 17/5/25 a las 1:13, Cyril Brulebois escribió: Soren Stoutner (2025-05-05): Filing these bug reports sounds like a good idea to me. I don’t see any reason to wait as these will be severity:minor, so they won’t interfere with the trixie release. Filing now can trigger uploads to fix those m

Re: Proposed MBF: packages that FTBFS with make --shuffle

2025-05-16 Thread Cyril Brulebois
Soren Stoutner (2025-05-05): > Filing these bug reports sounds like a good idea to me. I don’t see > any reason to wait as these will be severity:minor, so they won’t > interfere with the trixie release. Filing now can trigger uploads to fix those minor bugs, meaning packages that absolutely do

Re: Proposed MBF: packages that FTBFS with make --shuffle

2025-05-15 Thread Henrik Ahlgren
Santiago Vila writes: > Single-CPU systems are ubiquitous in the cloud. I was a system admin in > a small startup some time ago. Everything was in the cloud, and one of my > duties was naturally to reduce the IT bill if possible, so I used single-cpu > systems extensively, as they are almost alwa

Re: Proposed MBF: packages that FTBFS with make --shuffle

2025-05-14 Thread Santiago Vila
El 14/5/25 a las 19:27, Adrian Bunk escribió: On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 06:58:22PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: El 14/5/25 a las 12:50, Adrian Bunk escribió: ... How many of the packages that break with "make --shuffle" are currently doing parallel building? I am asking since these might be RC bug

Re: Proposed MBF: packages that FTBFS with make --shuffle

2025-05-14 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 06:58:22PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > El 14/5/25 a las 12:50, Adrian Bunk escribió: >... > > How many of the packages that break with "make --shuffle" are currently > > doing parallel building? > > I am asking since these might be RC bugs for trixie. > > I believed (rega

Re: Proposed MBF: packages that FTBFS with make --shuffle

2025-05-14 Thread Santiago Vila
El 14/5/25 a las 12:50, Adrian Bunk escribió: What is a maintainer supposed to do when the package already does "dh --no-parallel" and the upstream Makefiles are basically unfixable? Whether a Makefile is unfixable or not is subjective. Everything depends on the amount of time that one is willi

Re: Proposed MBF: packages that FTBFS with make --shuffle

2025-05-14 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
Hi, On 14/05/25 at 13:50 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 08:48:29AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > On 05/05/25 at 22:14 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > > > In some cases, the bug is already known, because debian/rules > > > has --max-parallel=1. Example: The alpine package. > >

Re: Proposed MBF: packages that FTBFS with make --shuffle

2025-05-14 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 08:48:29AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 05/05/25 at 22:14 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > > In some cases, the bug is already known, because debian/rules > > has --max-parallel=1. Example: The alpine package. > > > > (I wonder how much feasible would be to skip those pac

Re: Proposed MBF: packages that FTBFS with make --shuffle

2025-05-05 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
On 05/05/25 at 22:14 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > In some cases, the bug is already known, because debian/rules > has --max-parallel=1. Example: The alpine package. > > (I wonder how much feasible would be to skip those packages) The alpine package is indeed a good example of a package that make

Re: Proposed MBF: packages that FTBFS with make --shuffle

2025-05-05 Thread Santiago Vila
In some cases, the bug is already known, because debian/rules has --max-parallel=1. Example: The alpine package. (I wonder how much feasible would be to skip those packages) Thanks.

Re: Proposed MBF: packages that FTBFS with make --shuffle

2025-05-05 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
Hi, On 05/05/25 at 21:53 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > El 5/5/25 a las 21:26, Lucas Nussbaum escribió: > > [...] > > Thanks a lot for this. I was never brave enough to go ahead > and announce a MBF. > > May I know what kind of machines did you use to found those bugs? > Machines with 8 CPUs only

Re: Proposed MBF: packages that FTBFS with make --shuffle

2025-05-05 Thread Santiago Vila
El 5/5/25 a las 21:26, Lucas Nussbaum escribió: [...] Thanks a lot for this. I was never brave enough to go ahead and announce a MBF. May I know what kind of machines did you use to found those bugs? Machines with 8 CPUs only? (I ask because I found more than 800 packages with makefile issues

Re: Proposed MBF: packages that FTBFS with make --shuffle

2025-05-05 Thread Soren Stoutner
On Monday, May 5, 2025 12:26:00 PM Mountain Standard Time Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Hi, > > GNU Make now has a --shuffle option that simulates non-deterministic > ordering of target prerequisites. See > https://trofi.github.io/posts/238-new-make-shuffle-mode.html and also > previous work in Debian