GNU bug report logs

#76899 Request for merging "c++-team" branch

PackageSource(s)Maintainer(s)
guix-patches PTS Buildd Popcon
Full log

Message #154 received at 76899@debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox, reply):

Received: (at 76899) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Jul 2025 20:12:24 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Jul 30 16:12:24 2025
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43095 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1uhDA0-0001S3-45
	for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 30 Jul 2025 16:12:24 -0400
Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([185.233.100.1]:39130)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <andreas@enge.fr>) id 1uhD9x-0001Ri-OQ
 for 76899@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 30 Jul 2025 16:12:22 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by hera.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3E532D8;
 Wed, 30 Jul 2025 22:12:13 +0200 (CEST)
Authentication-Results: hera.aquilenet.fr;
	none
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavis at hera.aquilenet.fr
Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (hera.aquilenet.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavis, port 10024) with ESMTP
 id rSyUmULdCjQM; Wed, 30 Jul 2025 22:12:13 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from jurong (86.56.141.77.rev.sfr.net [77.141.56.86])
 by hera.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9676EB2;
 Wed, 30 Jul 2025 22:12:11 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 22:12:10 +0200
From: Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr>
To: Greg Hogan <code@greghogan.com>
Subject: Re: [bug#76899] Request for merging "c++-team" branch
Message-ID: <aIp8mh9s1PBgA19W@jurong>
References: <aIU7Rpx8SGFfDRZl@jurong>
 <CA+3U0ZkArHz1BmPztZhKP_JGvzJhUxA_ot+vu8WQUkOR0QYiOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <aIaQRtiZi9VmShH4@jurong> <aIdCpW3yqrvdBmNd@jurong>
 <aIdRi8DqQUJrO_nq@jurong> <aIfmoegl1VHMtBLq@jurong>
 <CA+3U0Z=3VLoV2u39v+=Sk4WzL1g_COQPHioONAjdfkCzbZhf6w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+3U0Z=ySsvYRDWasFiaGZs30peiOgHhcqKD4bAZrQY7hRg7+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <aInMzDzpwFd6uhp2@jurong>
 <CA+3U0Z=XtZMq75mWMz2LYcpd3gNwO8K42ph3m7cPUyb-2-MOyg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+3U0Z=XtZMq75mWMz2LYcpd3gNwO8K42ph3m7cPUyb-2-MOyg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-5.60 / 15.00]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[99.99%];
 NEURAL_HAM(-3.00)[-0.999]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[];
 MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[];
 MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[];
 RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3];
 FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[];
 FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[];
 ARC_NA(0.00)[]
X-Rspamd-Action: no action
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: A3E532D8
X-Rspamd-Server: hera
X-Spamd-Bar: -----
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 76899
Cc: 76899@debbugs.gnu.org, Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net>
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request@debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request@debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request@debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)
Am Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 12:54:05PM -0400 schrieb Greg Hogan:
> QA Substitute availability shows 80% for bordeaux with 8,000
> failed/blocked/unknown packages, which would be 25% of ~32,000 total
> packages [0].

Hm, no idea how we end up at 105%...

> CI is listed at 23% on x86-64 at priority 9 and is only building for
> x86_64-linux and i686-linux. What is the strategy here for team
> branches? I see other teams with only x86_64-linux and at the same
> lowest priority. Do we defer aarch64-linux to the post-rebase master
> specification? Should the priority be lowered for branches nearing
> completion?

CI has so few and so underpowered ARM machines that it does not even
keep up with master; so there is no point in ticking the box.
   https://qa.guix.gnu.org/branch/master
0% on aarch64 and armhf! People who want aarch64 substitutes need to
get them from bordeaux.

We could increase the priority for the branch, but the problem lies
elsewhere. If I see it correctly, some builds spuriously failed early on,
and then tons of packages are marked "dependency failed". I do not think
these will be restarted automatically, even after I restarted a few
of them by hand.

So we are left with QA right now. I am not satisfied with the build
submission speed, but it is advancing nevertheless; as far as I can see
on data.qa, your newly pushed branch will soon finish there, and build
submissions should start again.

Andreas





Send a report that this bug log contains spam.


debbugs.gnu.org maintainers <help-debbugs@gnu.org>. Last modified: Wed Sep 10 10:42:39 2025; Machine Name: wallace-server

GNU bug tracking system

Debbugs is free software and licensed under the terms of the GNU Public License version 2. The current version can be obtained from https://bugs.debian.org/debbugs-source/.

Copyright © 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson, 2005-2017 Don Armstrong, and many other contributors.