On 04/05/16 11:22, Santiago Vila wrote: >>> The link, when it's present, is supposed to match the actual build >>> which happened for the installed binaries. If they do not match it >>> would be better not to have a link at all. >> >> We don't have any way to match the actual build with the binary in the >> archive. > > So that's exactly what I'm trying to report as a bug. > > If you are already aware of the problem, I am glad that you are. > > [ Hmm. Have you ever reported as a bug that an e-commerce web page only > works with IE and have received a reply in the form "Our page > does only work with IE"? I feel like that right now... ] > > Anyway, regardless of how this could be fixed, can we agree at least > that it would be desirable that the links in the page match the actual > binary uploaded and installed in the archive? (I hope this is not just > a high expectation I have).
What I find odd is, if the arch:all packages were maintainer-uploaded, why did the all buildd try to build them? Was it a source-only upload, the builder tried to build the arch:all packages and failed, then the maintainer did a all-only upload? If that's the case, that would explain why there is a failed build log, yet it is listed as Installed. Then the bug is in the package for failing to build with dpkg-buildpackage -A. What we could improve here is a) forbidding binary uploads b) uploading logs when doing binary uploads c) showing "Installed" without a hyperlink, and showing the failed log in "old" d) getting #806096 fixed Cheers, Emilio
