| [01:22] <FailBit> anyone? | |
| === antivAway is now known as antivirtel | |
| === geser_ is now known as geser | |
| [07:31] <antivirtel> FailBit you may file an issue in the tracker! | |
| [07:31] <antivirtel> (/topic - see support!) | |
| === antivirtel_ is now known as antivAway | |
| === antivAway is now known as antivirtel | |
| === ahasenac` is now known as ahasenack | |
| [12:46] <teward> general question: why do PPAs not get armel enabled or arm64, when an ARM build request turns on armhf? | |
| [12:46] <teward> just looking for a more 'authoritative' answer than what i've heard so far. | |
| [12:46] <teward> not that i need armel or arm64 builds, i'm just asking :) | |
| [12:47] <antivirtel> here we are both teward | |
| [12:47] <cjwatson> teward: Because they're relatively rarely needed at the moment, unreliable in various ways due to using qemu-user-static, and resource-heavy due to using qemu-user-static. | |
| [12:47] <teward> antivirtel: yes, i know, but i'm not dragging our discussion into here when i'm waiting for the pros to respond :p | |
| [12:48] <cjwatson> teward: When we have decent ARM hardware in that cloud then this will probably change. | |
| [12:48] <teward> cjwatson: that's what i thought. antivirtel and I were in an argument about ARM builders in #znc | |
| [12:48] <teward> (for the PPAs) | |
| [12:48] <wgrant> armel is pointless nowadays. | |
| [12:48] <teward> which is my argument xD | |
| [12:48] <wgrant> And arm64 is very unreliable on qemu-user. | |
| [12:49] <teward> wgrant: and armel is pointless why? So you can explain to antivirtel why armv6 and armel are bad :p | |
| [12:49] <wgrant> We will probably allow users to opt into arm64 and armhf themselves soon. | |
| [12:49] <teward> (since armv6 and armhf don't get along) | |
| [12:49] <wgrant> Our armel is not ARMv6. | |
| [12:49] <cjwatson> armel was discontinued as of Ubuntu 13.04, so it would only be usable at all in lucid (EOLing) and precise. | |
| [12:49] <antivirtel> sure, but Raspberry Pi has armv6... yeah ^ | |
| [12:49] <wgrant> Our armel is still ARMv7. | |
| [12:49] <cjwatson> And that too. | |
| [12:49] <wgrant> It's just soft-float. | |
| [12:49] <antivirtel> so wgrant what about ARMv6, there is no compiler at all for that? | |
| [12:49] <cjwatson> You're out of luck. | |
| [12:50] <cjwatson> The only way to do it would be to basically stand up a copy of the entire compiler and library stack you need in a PPA. But really, Launchpad isn't likely to be the easiest way to do that because of how Ubuntu's ARM support is set up. | |
| [12:51] <antivirtel> I'm not :D I've built it already, I just need a hosting system... I'm planning to use some local thing, if you can't support it... | |
| [12:51] <cjwatson> (And even if you did that, it would be awfully easy for ARMv7 stuff to creep in.) | |
| [12:51] <cjwatson> I mean you're out of luck in Launchpad. | |
| [12:51] <antivirtel> ah, ok, sure | |
| [12:52] <cjwatson> If Ubuntu supported ARMv6, we likely could too, but we're pretty closely linked to what Ubuntu supports. | |
| [12:52] <antivirtel> btw, I'm requesting ZNC maintainers to maintain a private ARM (or other archs too) repos, so users won't need to compile it... | |
| [12:53] <antivirtel> cjwatson yeah, we're a bit offtopic with Raspbian, but it would be the best way | |
| [12:55] <teward> antivirtel: as I was saying in #znc, consider ZNC maintainers maintain the upstream repository - they don't maintain the Debain / Ubuntu /Raspbian package sets | |
| [12:55] <teward> antivirtel: nor would they necessarily have the knowledge to stage that | |
| [12:55] <teward> but that's offtopic here, so i'll drift back to the shadows and fuss with my postgres | |
| [13:29] <mancdaz> is there some way to target a bug at a release milestone, after it's been released? | |
| [13:29] <mancdaz> the milestone doesn't appear in the list any more | |
| [13:39] <antivirtel> cjwatson I have this repo: https://code.launchpad.net/~antivirtel/znc/znc-trunk -- can't you just add that recipie code, what can build it? I'll upload the whole compiler, if you want | |
| [13:39] <antivirtel> You have review access... I hope it will enough | |
| [13:42] <cjwatson> antivirtel: You're asking for weeks of work. | |
| [13:42] <cjwatson> No, sorry. | |
| [13:43] <teward> mancdaz: I don't think the 'milestones' exist anymore but you would ideally add a bug task for the specific Ubuntu release, if it's an Ubuntu package bug. | |
| [13:43] <mancdaz> I found it - the milstone was marked as 'inactive' | |
| [13:43] <mancdaz> meaning nobody could target new bugs at it | |
| [13:43] <teward> yes that's going to happen. | |
| [13:43] <antivirtel> cjwatson isn't it that easy as the usual way: ./configure; make ? | |
| [13:44] <mancdaz> teward thanks. managed to make it active and target some other bugs that should have been included | |
| [13:44] <cjwatson> Not when you would need a whole new compiler and library stack to make it go, no. | |
| [13:44] <antivirtel> ah, ok, thanks | |
| [13:44] <cjwatson> And I'm afraid that with three full-time engineers the Launchpad team does not have time to do packaging work for you :-) | |
| [13:45] <antivirtel> ok | |
| [22:49] <sergio-br2> anyone to enable arm build for me? --> https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/266008 | |
| [22:49] <sergio-br2> thanks! | |