Ardour3 architecture list

[Felipe Sateler]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Felipe Sateler <fsateler at debian.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk> wrote:
>> Quoting Felipe Sateler (2014-07-11 15:55:34)
>>> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:06 AM, Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk> wrote:
>>>> Quoting Felipe Sateler (2014-07-10 17:12:34)
>>>>> Ardour3 takes a long time to build. The mips and mipsel buildds
>>>>> killed the build after 150 and 300 minutes of inactivity. I managed
>>>>> to build ardour3 in the mipsel porterbox, so I don't think ardour
>>>>> has any real problem on mipsel. I was wondering if maybe we should
>>>>> restrict ardour to the architectures it is likely to be used.
>>>>> Otherwise we might need to ask that ardour be retried until it
>>>>> manages to print output fast enough to avoid getting killed.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> I think we should not decide based on where it is likely to be used,
>>>> but here is is possible to use.
>>>
>>> In an ideal world, I would agree. But manpower is very short in the
>>> team, so prioritizing is of the essence. Spending time on ensuring
>>> builds on an architecture (close to) nobody uses is not a very good
>>> use of it.
>>>
>>> But, if you have a suggestion to ensure the build doesn't time out,
>>> I'm all ears :)
>>
>> Maybe I failed to understand, but seems to me that asking th ardour
>> build to be retired until not myeriously hanging on porter boxes is not
>> burdening man power (of the Multimedia team) but instead putting the
>> burden on the porting team where it belongs.
>
> The burden is on us due to having to track down a missing build. But
> most importantly it is a burden on our users because until the mipsel
> build is up again, ardour3 cannot migrate to testing.
>
>>
>> I find it wrong of us to try second-guess interests of Debian users.
>>
>> Particularly, looking at popularity contest is wrong here, IMO, as that
>> a) is generally inaccurate (contributions to it is voluntary and only
>> reflects internet-connected hosts) and b) tells only about past usage
>> patterns, not interests-if-available for next release of Debian and the
>> hardware that will then be supported.
>
> In general, I agree. I would love to be able to provide all packages
> in all archs. But it may not be feasible due to time constraints.
>
>> ...but to address your concrete question: I do not have ideas how to
>> reliably avoid builds hanging, but if not already tried I do have a
>> suggestion for that: Ask the porters, as it seems you have narrowed the
>> issue to be architecture-dependent (if not, then so much more reason
>> against treating it as such!).
>
> The problem, as far as I can see, is that the build takes too long. I
> built ardour3 in eder (a mipsel porterbox) successfully, and it took
> over 12 hours!
>
> If you look at the log I linked to, the build daemon killed the build
> after some time without activity.

I just realized I didn't post the link before. Sorry! Here it is:

https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=ardour3&ver=3.5.380~dfsg-2&suite=sid


-- 

Saludos,
Felipe Sateler