On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 12:47:28PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > 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?
Yes, that's what it seems it happened. > 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. Sure, the package has a bug, but having a green "Installed" and a link to a failed log is misleading, so I prefer not to think in terms of "single bug". So I fully agree with your c) point: > c) showing "Installed" without a hyperlink, and showing the failed log in > "old" The other things are maybe not so easy. There are more than a hundred bugs like #806096, this is the complete list: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=binary-indep;[email protected] Most of them should be fixed before we can even think about forbidding binary uploads. But there is also a bug in dak which I consider even more important, as it makes failed source-only uploads like the one that failed here to be a pain to fix, as the upload fixing it goes to the NEW queue as if it were a new paclage. This is both a pain for the uploader and and a pain for the ftpmasters, who have to approve the package again. If any of you reading this have some free time and motivation to work on it: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=760206 Thanks a lot.
