Discussion - F17 GA release for ARM

[Paul Whalen]

Good day all, 

As many of you are aware we are not holding the Fedora ARM meeting this week, 
but shall return to our regular time next Wednesday June 6th.

Congratulations to the primary architectures for their GA release of Fedora 
17 on May 29th. With the successful release of the Fedora 17 Beta for ARM 
last week, its now time to turn our attention to the GA release and what is 
currently blocking our progress. We have built 96% of F17, with 
approximately 85 packages missing and 188 missing builds (this including many
packages that have 1 or more builds in between what we have versus PA).
Here is the full list: 
http://arm.koji.fedoraproject.org/status/f17-missing-2012-05-30.cgi

Work is still under way on the kernel for the Pandaboard, but all other
release criteria from our Alpha and Beta have been met. Please take a moment
to review the criteria for the final here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures/ARM/Quality_Assurance/Final_R...

Let's begin the discussion on the list - What do you foresee blocking us 
from our final release of F17?

Regards,
Paul

[Rich Mattes]

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Paul Whalen <pwhalen(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

>  We have built 96% of F17, with
>  approximately 85 packages missing and 188 missing builds (this including
>  many
>  packages that have 1 or more builds in between what we have versus PA).
>  Here is the full list:
>  http://arm.koji.fedoraproject.org/status/f17-missing-2012-05-30.cgi
>
>  
Is this an apples-to-apples comparison of packages between the arm
repositories and the f17 "fedora" repository?  Or are you taking into
account packages that don't build for arm due to exclusivearch/excludearch,
and all of the packages that depend on them?

Thanks,

Rich

[Peter Robinson]

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Rich Mattes <richmattes(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Paul
> Whalen &lt;pwhalen(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>
> > We have built 96% of F17, with
> > approximately 85 packages missing and 188 missing builds (this including
> > many
> > packages that have 1 or more builds in between what we have versus PA).
> > Here is the full list:
> > http://arm.koji.fedoraproject.org/status/f17-missing-2012-05-30.cgi
> >
>
>  Is this an apples-to-apples comparison of packages between the arm
>  repositories and the f17 "fedora" repository?  Or are you taking into
>  account packages that don't build for arm due to exclusivearch/excludearch,
>  and all of the packages that depend on them? 
Packages are mostly complete. Those that aren't built for F-17 on ARM
come down to 3 categories:
1) Not supported on ARM - mostly due to non ARM HW but a few others
2) are FTBFS on mainline F-17
3) have dep issues due to 2)

but then a whole bunch of packages built on an architecture don't make
a usable release, there's other criteria too.

Peter

[Dennis Gilmore]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

El Wed, 30 May 2012 17:00:58 -0400
Rich Mattes <richmattes(a)gmail.com&gt; escribió:
>  On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Paul Whalen
> <pwhalen(a)redhat.com&gt;
>  wrote:
>  
>  > We have built 96% of F17, with
>  > approximately 85 packages missing and 188 missing builds (this
>  > including many
>  > packages that have 1 or more builds in between what we have versus
>  > PA). Here is the full list:
>  > http://arm.koji.fedoraproject.org/status/f17-missing-2012-05-30.cgi
>  >
>  >
>  Is this an apples-to-apples comparison of packages between the arm
>  repositories and the f17 "fedora" repository?  Or are you taking into
>  account packages that don't build for arm due to
>  exclusivearch/excludearch, and all of the packages that depend on
>  them?
>  
that list is packages that we have built on arm in the past but the
current version on pa is not built on arm for some reason. 

there is another list
http://arm.koji.fedoraproject.org/status/koji-missing-packages.cgi that
are packages never built on arm. some of those are
ExcludeArch/ExclusiveArch that is set to not build on arm

Dennis
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk/GmQoACgkQkSxm47BaWfcVkwCeJ/eI7f2sxdQjCQr70BmlCHsX
> HIsAnRg9fxdZCJrMHF/LP7wGOkOHCbJx
> =XyMC
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

[Dennis Gilmore]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

El Wed, 30 May 2012 14:52:20 -0400 (EDT)
Paul Whalen <pwhalen(a)redhat.com&gt; escribió:
>  Good day all, 
>  
>  As many of you are aware we are not holding the Fedora ARM meeting
>  this week, but shall return to our regular time next Wednesday June
>  6th.
>  
>  Congratulations to the primary architectures for their GA release of
>  Fedora 17 on May 29th. With the successful release of the Fedora 17
>  Beta for ARM last week, its now time to turn our attention to the GA
>  release and what is currently blocking our progress. We have built
>  96% of F17, with approximately 85 packages missing and 188 missing
>  builds (this including many packages that have 1 or more builds in
>  between what we have versus PA). Here is the full list: 
>  http://arm.koji.fedoraproject.org/status/f17-missing-2012-05-30.cgi
>  
>  Work is still under way on the kernel for the Pandaboard, but all
>  other release criteria from our Alpha and Beta have been met. Please
>  take a moment to review the criteria for the final here:
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures/ARM/Quality_Assurance/Final_R...
>  
>  Let's begin the discussion on the list - What do you foresee blocking
>  us from our final release of F17?
>  
As i see it for ga release we need to have the 85 older builds built at
the same or newer nvr as primary. we need to have a working kernel on
pandaboard, ideally that includes working omapdrm. all blocker bugs
resolved and qa test matrices to be complete.


Dennis
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk/GmhMACgkQkSxm47BaWfcKegCcCaK6kG1fkmSFiPsRjVAcHeOt
> KK0AoIMBv3jCsckw+JAlokjZDuQkpn6b
> =P9iD
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

[Peter Robinson]

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Dennis Gilmore <dennis(a)ausil.us&gt; wrote:
>  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA1
>
>  El Wed, 30 May 2012 14:52:20 -0400 (EDT)
>  Paul Whalen <pwhalen(a)redhat.com&gt; escribió:
> > Good day all,
> >
> > As many of you are aware we are not holding the Fedora ARM meeting
> > this week, but shall return to our regular time next Wednesday June
> > 6th.
> >
> > Congratulations to the primary architectures for their GA release of
> > Fedora 17 on May 29th. With the successful release of the Fedora 17
> > Beta for ARM last week, its now time to turn our attention to the GA
> > release and what is currently blocking our progress. We have built
> > 96% of F17, with approximately 85 packages missing and 188 missing
> > builds (this including many packages that have 1 or more builds in
> > between what we have versus PA). Here is the full list:
> > http://arm.koji.fedoraproject.org/status/f17-missing-2012-05-30.cgi
> >
> > Work is still under way on the kernel for the Pandaboard, but all
> > other release criteria from our Alpha and Beta have been met. Please
> > take a moment to review the criteria for the final here:
> >
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures/ARM/Quality_Assurance/Final_R...
> >
> > Let's begin the discussion on the list - What do you foresee blocking
> > us from our final release of F17?
>
>  As i see it for ga release we need to have the 85 older builds built at
>  the same or newer nvr as primary. we need to have a working kernel on
>  pandaboard, ideally that includes working omapdrm. all blocker bugs
>  resolved and qa test matrices to be complete. 
The vast majority of the "older" builds are FTBFS on mainline and on
mainline have fc16 or pre gcc 4.7 fc17 builds so in the vast majority
of these cases they're not going to be able to be fixed in the f-17
gold and actually need upstream maintainers to fix the packages. I
don't see that most of those are actually builds we can fix at the
current stage of play. I can provide a list of those if it helps.

Peter

[Brendan Conoboy]

On 05/30/2012 11:52 AM, Paul Whalen wrote:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures/ARM/Quality_Assurance/Final_R...
>
>  Let's begin the discussion on the list - What do you foresee blocking us
>  from our final release of F17? 
There's one addition I would like to see to the final release criteria: 
Updated linker path in gcc and glibc.

-- 
Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / blc(a)redhat.com

[Andrew Haley]

On 05/31/2012 01:50 AM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
>  There's one addition I would like to see to the final release
> criteria: 
>  Updated linker path in gcc and glibc. 
Why is that important?  We'll drop a compat symlink in anyway,
and no-one should notice the change.

Andrew.

[Steve McIntyre]

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 08:49:57AM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 01:50 AM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> > There's one addition I would like to see to the final release criteria: 
> > Updated linker path in gcc and glibc.
>
> Why is that important?  We'll drop a compat symlink in anyway,
> and no-one should notice the change. 
2 reasons:

 * it would be nice if people using Fedora create binaries using the
   right path for the future

 * the compat symlink on its own isn't enough, changing the filename
   means the soname has changed too. There's a (quick and very dirty)
   glibc patch to make things work regardless - see [1]

We got consensus about the linker path last month, let's *please*
follow through on it everywhere.

[1] http://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/cross-distro/2012-April/000263.html

Cheers,
-- 
Steve McIntyre                                steve.mcintyre(a)linaro.org
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs

[Andrew Haley]

On 05/31/2012 09:03 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>   * the compat symlink on its own isn't enough, changing the
> filename
>     means the soname has changed too. 
Oh, yuck.  I don't remember anyone thinking about that during
the meeting.  :-(

Andrew.

[Steve McIntyre]

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 09:19:51AM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 09:03 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >  * the compat symlink on its own isn't enough, changing the filename
> >    means the soname has changed too.
>
> Oh, yuck.  I don't remember anyone thinking about that during
> the meeting.  :-( 
Agreed. :-(

It's something that came up when Adam worked on the Ubuntu toolchain
changes. It's a *grotty* hack, I know, but it's the easiest solution
to support what's needed without forcing everybody to rebuild the
world overnight.

Cheers,
-- 
Steve McIntyre                                steve.mcintyre(a)linaro.org
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs

[Brendan Conoboy]

On 05/31/2012 01:03 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>  2 reasons:
>
>    * it would be nice if people using Fedora create binaries using the
>      right path for the future
>
>    * the compat symlink on its own isn't enough, changing the filename
>      means the soname has changed too. There's a (quick and very dirty)
>      glibc patch to make things work regardless - see [1] 
In addition to the glibc and gcc patches we will likely need to update 
prelink as well.  It has some hard-coded strings for what to avoid mangling.

-- 
Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / blc(a)redhat.com