On 2012-06-24 11:34, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Source: lintian > Version: 2.5.9 > Severity: serious > Tags: wheezy sid > User: [email protected] > Usertags: qa-ftbfs-20120624 qa-ftbfs > Justification: FTBFS on amd64 > > Hi, > > During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build on > amd64. > > Relevant part: >> ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ >> │ Install lintian build dependencies (apt-based resolver) >> │ >> └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ >> >> Installing build dependencies >> Reading package lists... >> Building dependency tree... >> Reading state information... >> Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have >> requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable >> distribution that some required packages have not yet been created >> or been moved out of Incoming. >> The following information may help to resolve the situation: >> >> The following packages have unmet dependencies: >> sbuild-build-depends-lintian-dummy : Depends: xz-lzma but it is not >> installable >> E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages. >> apt-get failed. > > The full build log is available from: > http://people.debian.org/~lucas/logs/2012/06/24/lintian_2.5.9_unstable.log > > A list of current common problems and possible solutions is available at > http://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/FTBFS . You're welcome to contribute! > > About the archive rebuild: The rebuild was done on EC2 VM instances from > Amazon Web Services, using a clean, minimal and up-to-date chroot. Every > failed build was retried once to eliminate random failures. > > >
Hi, "Fun" case. I cannot really reproduce it, but I guess it has to do with our "xz-lzma | lzma" build depedency. As far as I can tell, xz-lzma is no longer available[1], but xz-utils now provides lzma[2]. Given dpkg-dev is build essential there is no way (currently) for xz-utils to be unavailable. I guess it is the "sbuild and virtual packages" issue (or is it "first alternative only")? Admittedly we do not explicitly build depend on xz-utils, which smells like a bug. ~Niels [1] As of xz-utils/5.1.1alpha+20120614-1. [2] Package: xz-utils [...] Conflicts: lzma (<< 9.22-1), xz-lzma Breaks: lzip (<< 1.8~rc2) Replaces: lzip (<< 1.8~rc2), xz-lzma Provides: lzma -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
