On 19 April 2017 at 20:55, Lucas Nussbaum <[email protected]> wrote: > On 19/04/17 at 09:05 +0200, Michael Stapelberg wrote: > > This is the third time an FTBFS report against this package (which was > > removed from Debian) was submitted. > > > > The other two times were > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=855926 and > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=848806, both were > closed > > asking for an explanation as to why the issue was filed in the first > place. > > ... And none sending the question to the bug submitter.
Defeated by the Debian BTS, I didn't realize that you had to email the submitter separately when closing a bug... > > > lucas, is this a bug in your rebuild infrastructure, or did something go > > wrong with the removal? > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=839364 (same issue as > the > > one you’re reporting) was closed by ftpmaster due to package removal. > > In my local Sources file, I have: [...] > 'Extra-Source-Only' means that there are still binary packages in the > archive > that were built using that version of the golang package. > > In fact, for that version: > $ grep -e Package -e Using 127.0.0.1\:9999_debian_dists_ > testing_main_binary-amd64_Packages |grep -B1 'golang (= 2:1.6.1-2)' > Package: golang-github-armon-go-metrics-dev > Built-Using: golang (= 2:1.6.1-2), golang-github-datadog-datadog-go (= > 0.0~git20150930.0.b050cd8-1), golang-github-prometheus-common (= > 0+git20160321.4045694-1), golang-goprotobuf (= 0.0~git20160330-1), > golang-procfs (= 0+git20150616.c91d8ee-1), golang-prometheus-client (= > 0.7.0+ds-3), golang-protobuf-extensions (= 0+git20150513.fc2b8d3-4) > -- > Package: golang-github-gosexy-gettext-dev > Built-Using: golang (= 2:1.6.1-2) > -- > Package: golang-github-hashicorp-go-msgpack-dev > Built-Using: golang (= 2:1.6.1-2) > -- > Package: golang-github-stretchr-objx-dev > Built-Using: golang (= 2:1.6.1-2) > -- > Package: golang-github-kr-pty-dev > Built-Using: golang (= 2:1.6.1-2) > > This case could be ignored by the rebuild scripts, or binnmus could be > trigerred to get rid of the other versions. I'm not sure it makes sense to > ship > that many copies of golang in stretch. > > I think I read something about an organized plan to get rid of such extra > packages using binnmus, but maybe I was dreaming. Ccing debian-release@. > I think I heard something about that. FWIW, though, these Built-Using fields are bogus, golang -dev packages just ship source and so do not actually contain anything built by the mentioned version of the compiler. I think I've managed to hammer this into everyone's heads now but I guess there are plenty of packages in the archive that haven't had an upload since then (so I guess the binNMUs could just drop the field?). Cheers, mwh
