Re: Bug#22197: apt: tries to install bin-i386 on m68k, requesting , removal of deb
[ Cc to Jason added, since I guess he doesn't read d-68k and at least
the first part is of interest too him. ]
"Stefan Gybas" <cab@studbox.uni-stuttgart.de> writes:
> > #1 I can't seem to find out who compiled apt for m68k, they obviously
> > didn't test it in the slightest bit
>
> It was me and you are right: I did not test 0.0.8 before uploading, because
>
> (a) I have previously built apt 0.0.6 which I did test extensively
> before uploading and did not find any m68k related problems (so
> I thought there should be no problems in future releases)
>
> (b) it is a package for experimental.
>
> I have tested the .deb with lintian (almost every package that I've
> built so far produced warings or even errors - so I ignore most of
> them) and installed it with dpkg. I don't have time to test every
> package that I build
Personally I don't think it's worth testing packages with lintian; a
sanity check of dpkg -I and dpkg -c on debs (as per debbuild) is the
best one can hope to do for packages one knows works on an
architecture (or did previously) but which would be infeasible to test
every time a new version is released.
> - if that is not enough, I will stop building packages.
Please don't. Before my hard drive sacrificed itself to the Great
Ext2fs Error Demon in the sky(TM), I was using packages you built on
transmet and on kullervo without problems.
> > #2 Your bug output shows that is is a version eariler than .6 - it links
> > against slang and other packages that .8 does not, bu the
> > version says .8! How can this be?
>
> All I did was downloading the 0.0.8 source and calling debbuild.sh -
> I did not change a singe bit in the source.
Don't worry, this was confusion caused by the way Goswin reported the
bug. It's *not your fault*.
> As i've already said: I did so with 0.0.6 and so I thought there
> should be no problems with future releases. Anyway, I will not build
> any packages from expermintal any longer.
Personally I think this is a good idea, but then I'm biased as the
only things I consider worth building is hamm/main/*.
--
James
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-68k-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: