[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Monotone-debian] state of the buildds
From: |
Ludovic Brenta |
Subject: |
Re: [Monotone-debian] state of the buildds |
Date: |
Sun, 04 Nov 2007 14:31:31 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) |
Zack Weinberg writes:
> On Nov 3, 2007 3:26 PM, Ludovic Brenta <address@hidden> wrote:
>> You probably noticed: I uploaded the powerpc build I made manually
>> without any trouble. The powerpc buildd has a problem I can't do
>> anything about.
>
> Yeah, I saw that. I don't see anything on debian-powerpc to explain
> the buildd problem :-( Would it be possible for you to build and
> upload powerpc packages for the next few versions?
Yes. It's extra work but doable.
>> OK, thanks for the info. Could you please add a changelog entry
>> (0.37-2) and let me know (e.g. by means of a tag :) ) when you think I
>> should upload? I should be available to do that on Monday or Tuesday
>> if you are ready by then.
>
> Yes, I'll do that; Monday or Tuesday looks doable with my schedule
> too. I can do builds for i386 and/or amd64, too.
I must do the build myself because I'm the sponsor :) but I do
appreciate that you build and iron out any problems before I do.
>> OTOH, there is no point in uploading before the buildd admins fix
>> the problems with package gs on their machines. Do you happen to
>> be in touch with them regarding that?
>
> I haven't been able to contact any buildd admins. I have no idea
> what's wrong with sparc, but ia64 has not built the new ghostscript
> packages due to what looks like a genuine bug in them (see
> http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=ghostscript;ver=8.61.dfsg.1%7Esvn8187-2;arch=ia64;stamp=1193779192).
>
> Theoretically, we shouldn't need ghostscript at all - it's only for
> the PDF manual, which is in an arch:all package, so the buildds
> shouldn't even be bothering to generate it. Do you know how to
> structure debian/rules so that works? It evidently does *not* work
> with cdbs' defaults. (You may recall that in 0.36 I dumped the
> entire of what used to be Build-Depends-Indep into Build-Depends
> because the buildds were insisting on building the manual...)
So, you need to re-split the build dependencies into Build-Depends and
Build-Depends-Indep and investigate why dpkg-buildpackage -B would try
to build the manual. It shouldn't, and that's a bug in debian/rules.
--
Ludovic Brenta.
- [Monotone-debian] state of the buildds, Zack Weinberg, 2007/11/02
- Re: [Monotone-debian] state of the buildds, Ludovic Brenta, 2007/11/02
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: [Monotone-debian] state of the buildds, Ludovic Brenta, 2007/11/03
- Re: [Monotone-debian] state of the buildds, Zack Weinberg, 2007/11/04
- Re: [Monotone-debian] state of the buildds,
Ludovic Brenta <=
- Re: [Monotone-debian] state of the buildds, Zack Weinberg, 2007/11/05
- Re: [Monotone-debian] state of the buildds, Richard Levitte, 2007/11/05
- Re: [Monotone-debian] state of the buildds, Ludovic Brenta, 2007/11/05