Review of armel regression FTBFSes

[Loïc Minier]

        Hey

 Matthias kicked an armel rebuild of Ubuntu main with a gcc-4.4 + Linaro
 diff package.  The rebuild copy-archive is visible at:
    https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+archive/test-rebuild-20100707

 The failed logs are at:
    https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+archive/test-rebuild-20100707/+builds?build_text=&build_state=failed

 @Steve, you had offered help in reviewing the i386/amd64 rebuilds in
 the past (and I think Michael Hope was working on these); I would very
 much take help in reviewing the armel issues.  Is this something the
 Foundations team could help with?

 I'd like to discuss organizing this review a bit.

 * First, we need to make sure we don't review the same build logs
   multiple times; the rebuild isn't over and builds are going to
   continue showing up; Matthias told me new build logs will show up at
   the top, so we only need to note the last package we reviewed.

 * We need some place tracking the build logs which we skipped (for
   which we didn't file a bug) and/or note last reviewed package; I
   propose to note this down in a wiki page.

 * For now, we should skip openjdk / java related issues; openjdk needs
   some bug fixing before we can consider using it on armel.  Such
   issues should be documented along other instructions in the
   aforementioned wiki page.

 * I think we should skip packages which FTBFS on x86.  Do we actually
   compare build logs before classifying these?

 * We should file bugs with some standard tags, perhaps linaro + armel?

 * I would like us to develop helpers to analyze build-logs; perhaps
   Lucas Nussbaum has something since he manages to analyze the grid5000
   rebuild logs decently.  Ideally, these tools would also allow
   assigning build log reviews to people, leaving comments and such.

 Comments welcome!

   Cheers,
-- 
Loïc Minier