Re: package mgltools-sff BD-Uninstallable
Hi Kurt, thanks for helping me. On Sat, 3 Aug 2013, Kurt Roeckx wrote: I assume that we only give the packages from main to check that, so that build-depends on packages from non-free will always have this effect. But there has been a successful build of mgltools-sff in 2012 [1]. Have there been any changes since then? Obviously there have been, but would it be possible to revert them? Thorsten [1] https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=mgltools-sffarch=sparcver=1.5.6~rc3~cvs.20120206-1stamp=1328717639 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wb-team-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pine.lnx.4.64.1308041126460.23...@tor.gallien.in-chemnitz.de
Re: package mgltools-sff BD-Uninstallable
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 11:36:20 +0200, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: Hi Kurt, thanks for helping me. On Sat, 3 Aug 2013, Kurt Roeckx wrote: I assume that we only give the packages from main to check that, so that build-depends on packages from non-free will always have this effect. But there has been a successful build of mgltools-sff in 2012 [1]. Have there been any changes since then? Obviously there have been, but would it be possible to revert them? The fact that incoming had both main and non-free packages in the same archive was a bug. That has since been fixed. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: package mgltools-sff BD-Uninstallable
On Sun, 4 Aug 2013, Julien Cristau wrote: But there has been a successful build of mgltools-sff in 2012 [1]. Have there been any changes since then? Obviously there have been, but would it be possible to revert them? The fact that incoming had both main and non-free packages in the same archive was a bug. That has since been fixed. Ok, but was does that mean for my package. Isn't it allowed to let a non-free package depend on another non-free package anymore? Thorsten -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wb-team-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pine.lnx.4.64.1308041426200.28...@tor.gallien.in-chemnitz.de
Re: package mgltools-sff BD-Uninstallable
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 14:29:40 +0200, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: On Sun, 4 Aug 2013, Julien Cristau wrote: But there has been a successful build of mgltools-sff in 2012 [1]. Have there been any changes since then? Obviously there have been, but would it be possible to revert them? The fact that incoming had both main and non-free packages in the same archive was a bug. That has since been fixed. Ok, but was does that mean for my package. Isn't it allowed to let a non-free package depend on another non-free package anymore? It's allowed, it just won't be autobuilt. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Please give back octave-control on armhf
Le mardi 30 juillet 2013 à 19:49 +0200, Kurt Roeckx a écrit : On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 08:52:07AM +0200, Sébastien Villemot wrote: Hi, Please give back octave-control on armhf. The build failure looks transient, and I was able to build the package on a porterbox (harris). gb octave-control_2.4.3-1 . armhf The box still seems to have gcc-4.6 installed which might be the problem. I've given it back. Thanks. Unfortunately it was tried again on harris, and failed again. The reason of the failure seems to be that the chroot has g++ 4.6, while gfortran 4.8 is pulled in by the build. Then it tries to compile a C++ program, explicitly linking against -lgfortran, which is then not found due to version mismatches. Is it possible to give back the package on another buildd? Or alternatively upgrade the chroot on harris? Thanks, -- .''`.Sébastien Villemot : :' :Debian Developer `. `' http://www.dynare.org/sebastien `- GPG Key: 4096R/381A7594 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: package mgltools-sff BD-Uninstallable
On Sun, 4 Aug 2013, Julien Cristau wrote: Ok, but was does that mean for my package. Isn't it allowed to let a non-free package depend on another non-free package anymore? It's allowed, it just won't be autobuilt. Hmm, the package already has this XS-Autobuild stuff in debian/control. The buildd even tries to build it, but complains that a dependency is not available. But that could not be true!? Or do I interpret this message wrong: mgltools-sff (= 1.5.7~rc1~cvs.20130519-2) build-depends on missing: - mgltools-bhtree Thorsten -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wb-team-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pine.lnx.4.64.1308041909570.2...@tor.gallien.in-chemnitz.de
Re: Please give back octave-control on armhf
Hello, 2013/8/4 Sébastien Villemot sebast...@debian.org: Thanks. Unfortunately it was tried again on harris, and failed again. The reason of the failure seems to be that the chroot has g++ 4.6, while gfortran 4.8 is pulled in by the build. Then it tries to compile a C++ program, explicitly linking against -lgfortran, which is then not found due to version mismatches. Is it possible to give back the package on another buildd? Or alternatively upgrade the chroot on harris? It failed in hasse buildd, as it was down when we updated build chroots to use gcc-4.8, now updated. Note harris is a porterbox. Package has been given back. Regards, -- Héctor Orón -.. . -... .. .- -. -.. . ...- . .-.. --- .--. . .-. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wb-team-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caodfwefwqf1u446qaskizi_qomtuy3irnxkwv+1rgdj1euh...@mail.gmail.com
Re: package mgltools-sff BD-Uninstallable
On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 07:14:04PM +0200, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: On Sun, 4 Aug 2013, Julien Cristau wrote: Ok, but was does that mean for my package. Isn't it allowed to let a non-free package depend on another non-free package anymore? It's allowed, it just won't be autobuilt. Hmm, the package already has this XS-Autobuild stuff in debian/control. The buildd even tries to build it, but complains that a dependency is not available. But that could not be true!? Or do I interpret this message wrong: mgltools-sff (= 1.5.7~rc1~cvs.20130519-2) build-depends on missing: - mgltools-bhtree It was not given to the buildd. This is a check where the Build-Depends are checked against what is in the Packages' files, before the buildd tries it. This is done using edos-distcheck. The difference is that there used to be 1 Packages files that give the buildds access to what's in incoming that contained all architectures and contained main, contrib and non-free. Those are now all seperate files like the normal archive. The buildds themself should now all also be configured to have a deb-src line for non-free, but only have a deb line for main and contrib. So even if we moved it out of the BD-Uninstallable state, it wouldn't get build. I'm not sure what policy that the debian.org hosts have for installing and running non-free software, but I understand that this is problematic, and I think we should at least ask DSA first before doing so. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wb-team-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130804182342.ga25...@roeckx.be
