Re: Packages not making it into testing
Anthony Towns <email@example.com> wrote:
>The following packages haven't been uploaded this year, and also haven't
>made it into testing for a while. If people could go through and make
>sure the maintainer knows about the issues, or do NMUs as appropriate, or
>work out what the problem actually is, or similar, that'd be pretty cool.
>There's a fair few "doesn't build on sparc" bugs (compared to any other
>architecture). This is for two reasons: one, alpha and i386 have a lot
>fewer such problems; and two, I'm ignoring arm, m68k and powerpc problems
>of that nature, although arm's actually doing pretty well too.
Also because sparc and others don't autobuild contrib/non-free. I'm
willing to bet that a fair amount of manual attention might be needed
there, as problems in non-free can sometimes cause problems in main (see
libdnd not being removable from testing because xzx depends on it on
alpha, for example - possibly just a bad build environment).
>+ lgrind uploaded 125 days ago, out of date by 115 days!
> doesn't build on sparc, no bug filed
When I tried to build it it had an ugly build process that caused a file
to be installed outside the build tree, so I didn't upload it (#90767).
Incidentally, could I request one change to the format of
update_output.txt that would make problems in testing easier to debug
(unless there's some other set of information I don't know about)? I'd
like to see the reports of uninstallability for each package mention all
architectures, to help distinguish between problems on one or two
architectures and problems on everything. The last time I looked they
just showed the lexically first architecture that was causing problems,
so for a while I was scratching my head and wondering "why does alpha
have so many problems?".
Colin Watson [firstname.lastname@example.org]