Bug#483280: ia64/unstable: FTBFS: needs ocamlopt
On Thursday 29 May 2008, Luk Claes wrote: > Julien Cristau wrote: > > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:11:32 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > >> So, even assuming that the buildd have been invoked on the two packages > >> for some weird buildd reason, I don't get why binary-arch was invoked. > > > > Because that's what dpkg-buildpackage -B does, and what buildds use. > > > >> But even admitting this is due to some buildd weirdness, I'm not getting > >> why the bugs have been reported. Aren't they bogus? > > > > They are. > > Well, not really. As long as a package is not in P-a-s on that > architecture it's still a bug either because it has to be added to P-a-s > or because it should build on that architecture (eventually after adding > support). Lamont, Since you are listed as one of the maintainers of Packages-arch-specific (last edited on 2008/04/15 16:42:48 lamont Exp $) could you please ensure that the source packages of ara and spamoracle will *not* be autobuilt on the following architectures: alpha, arm, armel, hppa, ia64, m68k, mips, mipsel, s390. The reason is that the above listed architectures don't have ocamlopt (the native compiler) to built their arch-dependant parts. For these architectures are provided -byte binary packages which are arch: all and which are built only once and run on all arches. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#483280: ia64/unstable: FTBFS: needs ocamlopt
Julien Cristau wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:11:32 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > >> So, even assuming that the buildd have been invoked on the two packages >> for some weird buildd reason, I don't get why binary-arch was invoked. > > Because that's what dpkg-buildpackage -B does, and what buildds use. > >> But even admitting this is due to some buildd weirdness, I'm not getting >> why the bugs have been reported. Aren't they bogus? >> > They are. Well, not really. As long as a package is not in P-a-s on that architecture it's still a bug either because it has to be added to P-a-s or because it should build on that architecture (eventually after adding support). >> Luk, why you did raise the severity? >> > He downgraded it from serious to important, AIUI. Indeed, I downgraded them as the package is not in testing on these architectures. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#483280: ia64/unstable: FTBFS: needs ocamlopt
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:40:27AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:12:47AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > > > What we are supposed to do with FTBFS like #483280, #483307, and similar > > > where > > > ocamlopt binary is just not available on these particular architectures, > > > in > > > that case IA-64 ? Should we just set the severity to important as Luk > > > Claes > > > did for #483280 and wait for upstream to provide support for IA-64 or > > > should > > > we remove ia64 from Architecture: list ? > > > > > Ignore or close them, IMO. > > Uh, why? > > If the package should not be built there it should be declared as such. > If it can be built in some other way just make the package do that. Actually I looked only now at the architecture lists of ara and spamoracle, and in fact ia64 is not listed in any of them. So, even assuming that the buildd have been invoked on the two packages for some weird buildd reason, I don't get why binary-arch was invoked. But even admitting this is due to some buildd weirdness, I'm not getting why the bugs have been reported. Aren't they bogus? Luk, why you did raise the severity? Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ... now what? [EMAIL PROTECTED],cs.unibo.it,debian.org} -<%>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ?/\All one has to do is hit the (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema\/right keys at the right time signature.asc Description: Digital signature
