Status of SRPMs in stage4, with pretty colors

[DJ Delorie]

Based on an internal mirror of the various repositories (i.e. it might
be slightly out of date), I wrote a script to compare the SRPMs
(diff'ing the contents) generated during stage4 with SRPMs from other
sources (mostly, F15 official ones, but also from SRPMs still in the
builder queues).  Color coded with diffs and stats:

     http://djdelorie.fedorapeople.org/armv7-srpms.html

(uses javascript to show/hide diffs)

Summary:

  99 SRPMs are of the .0.armN variety (only 5 I couldn't find the
     upstream to diff against)

   3 SRPMs in stage 4 have the same NVR as GA/updates BUT DIFFER IN
     CONTENT (glibc and gdesklets vs GA, crash has changelog diffs vs
     development)

   5 SRPMs match rawhide

  11 SRPMs show up in the builder queues ("others") but not upstream

   0 SRPMs that show up in the builder queues differ in content

  30 SRPMs I couldn't find outside stage4 (might be from an older
     rawhide)

4704 SRPMs match GA or updates (name and content match)


Note: the HTML file is about 1 MB

[Henrik Nordström]

Many thanks! Very useful report. Actually had on my todo for some time
to do something similar to audit stage4 and very glad you have done it
already.

ons 2011-09-28 klockan 23:18 -0400 skrev DJ Delorie:

>  Summary:
>  
>    99 SRPMs are of the .0.armN variety (only 5 I couldn't find the
>       upstream to diff against) 
Most of these are pending for being replaced by updated mainline F15
builds as they become available. But not all. Some coordination is
needed here to make sure all gets pushed to mainline.

>     3 SRPMs in stage 4 have the same NVR as GA/updates BUT DIFFER IN
>       CONTENT (glibc and gdesklets vs GA, crash has changelog diffs vs
>       development) 
glibc appears to be an arm hacked one where no tag was added in Release.
Needs someone to take the changes and get them mainline.

gdesklets seems very odd that the .tar.gz differ. needs to be
investigated what happened and probably rebuilt to correct the
unexpected difference.

crash is the most recent mainline F15 build which adds arm support.

>     5 SRPMs match rawhide 
All except ppl looks like F15 builds not yet in updates.

>    11 SRPMs show up in the builder queues ("others") but not
> upstream 
Most seem to be F15 builds not yet in updates, but not all.

>     0 SRPMs that show up in the builder queues differ in content
?

is this matches between SRPMS* and stage4/ .src.rpm? Would be quite
worried if there was differences between those.

>    30 SRPMs I couldn't find outside stage4 (might be from an
> older
>       rawhide) 
In those there is two main categories. Which one can be identified by
the name of the stage4 folder.

a) Packages thad did not have an f15 build and got their dist tag
modified by the build process. Identified by the folder name having a
different dist tag than the srpm.

To prune the list from false indications please do the following

* Use the name of the folder where the srpm is instead of the srpm. This
to prune out dist tag differences.

* Ignore the dist tag in the package name to further reduce false
mismatches in srpm names.

* For each remaining build in the list without an .armN tag, try
fetching the build from koji.

* remove the "other" category. it's not really interesting to compare
stage4 to what is in the different SRPM folders on arm-temp. Those
exists mainly to aid the build queue management and says very little
about the origin of the srpm.

The order in which to look for a matching package is

1. F15 GA  (OK)
2. F15 updates (OK)
3. F15 koji  (OK with remark)
4. F16 / rawhide koji. (needs to be merged to F15)

I do not think we should look for matches elsewhere, at least not for
categorization purposes.

and only look at current stage4 package versions. Some packages in
stage4 have been replaced by newer builds. The easiest way to get the
right list of  stage4 srpms is probably "repoquery -i stage4 -a --qf
%{sourcerpm} | sort -u"

Regards
Henrik

Nice chart!
I was poking through the diffs, and in a number of spots
It shows:

-ExclusiveArch:  %{ix86} x86_64 ppc alpha sparcv9
+ExclusiveArch:  %{ix86} x86_64 ppc alpha sparcv9 armv7hl

I thought we were adding armv5tel as well when we added armv7hl or  
does armv5tel not need the ExclusiveArch tag?




Quoting DJ Delorie <dj(a)redhat.com&gt;:

>  Based on an internal mirror of the various repositories (i.e. it might
>  be slightly out of date), I wrote a script to compare the SRPMs
>  (diff'ing the contents) generated during stage4 with SRPMs from other
>  sources (mostly, F15 official ones, but also from SRPMs still in the
>  builder queues).  Color coded with diffs and stats:
>
>       http://djdelorie.fedorapeople.org/armv7-srpms.html
>
>  (uses javascript to show/hide diffs)
>
>  Summary:
>
>    99 SRPMs are of the .0.armN variety (only 5 I couldn't find the
>       upstream to diff against)
>
>     3 SRPMs in stage 4 have the same NVR as GA/updates BUT DIFFER IN
>       CONTENT (glibc and gdesklets vs GA, crash has changelog diffs vs
>       development)
>
>     5 SRPMs match rawhide
>
>    11 SRPMs show up in the builder queues ("others") but not upstream
>
>     0 SRPMs that show up in the builder queues differ in content
>
>    30 SRPMs I couldn't find outside stage4 (might be from an older
>       rawhide)
>
>  4704 SRPMs match GA or updates (name and content match)
>
>
>  Note: the HTML file is about 1 MB
>  _______________________________________________
>  arm mailing list
>  arm(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
>  


-- 
"The information in this email, and attachment(s) thereto, is strictly  
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for  
the named recipient(s), and access to this e-mail, or any  
attachment(s) thereto, by anyone else is unauthorized. Violations  
hereof may result in legal actions. Any attachment(s) to this e-mail  
have been checked for viruses, but please rely on your own  
virus-checker and procedures. If you contact us by e-mail, we will  
store your name and address to facilitate communications in the matter  
concerned. If you do not consent to us storing your name and address  
for above stated purpose, please notify the sender promptly. Also, if  
you are not the intended recipient please inform the sender by  
replying to this transmission, and delete the e-mail, its  
attachment(s), and any copies of it without, disclosing it."

[d.marlin]

omalleys(a)msu.edu wrote:
>  Nice chart!
>  I was poking through the diffs, and in a number of spots
>  It shows:
>
>  -ExclusiveArch:  %{ix86} x86_64 ppc alpha sparcv9
>  +ExclusiveArch:  %{ix86} x86_64 ppc alpha sparcv9 armv7hl
>
>  I thought we were adding armv5tel as well when we added armv7hl or  
>  does armv5tel not need the ExclusiveArch tag?
>     
Should we not simply add %{arm} and catch all variants?

d.marlin
========
>  Quoting DJ Delorie <dj(a)redhat.com&gt;:
>
>    
> > Based on an internal mirror of the various repositories (i.e. it might
> > be slightly out of date), I wrote a script to compare the SRPMs
> > (diff'ing the contents) generated during stage4 with SRPMs from other
> > sources (mostly, F15 official ones, but also from SRPMs still in the
> > builder queues).  Color coded with diffs and stats:
> >
> >      http://djdelorie.fedorapeople.org/armv7-srpms.html
> >
> > (uses javascript to show/hide diffs)
> >
> > Summary:
> >
> >   99 SRPMs are of the .0.armN variety (only 5 I couldn't find the
> >      upstream to diff against)
> >
> >    3 SRPMs in stage 4 have the same NVR as GA/updates BUT DIFFER IN
> >      CONTENT (glibc and gdesklets vs GA, crash has changelog diffs vs
> >      development)
> >
> >    5 SRPMs match rawhide
> >
> >   11 SRPMs show up in the builder queues ("others") but not upstream
> >
> >    0 SRPMs that show up in the builder queues differ in content
> >
> >   30 SRPMs I couldn't find outside stage4 (might be from an older
> >      rawhide)
> >
> > 4704 SRPMs match GA or updates (name and content match)
> >
> >
> > Note: the HTML file is about 1 MB
> > _______________________________________________
> > arm mailing list
> > arm(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
> >
> >     
>
>
>
>

[Henrik Nordström]

tor 2011-09-29 klockan 09:27 -0400 skrev omalleys(a)msu.edu:
>  Nice chart!
>  I was poking through the diffs, and in a number of spots
>  It shows:
>  
>  -ExclusiveArch:  %{ix86} x86_64 ppc alpha sparcv9
>  +ExclusiveArch:  %{ix86} x86_64 ppc alpha sparcv9 armv7hl
>  
>  I thought we were adding armv5tel as well when we added armv7hl or  
>  does armv5tel not need the ExclusiveArch tag? 
There is about 100 of those related to Haskell. Hopefully we will manage
to get ghc running on armv5tel as well but it can't be done until a fair
bit of f15 base system is there. As ghc is itself written in haskell
there is a bit of procedure to get it built per arch.

Regards
Henrik