[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [buildd] Etch?



On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 07:52:12PM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 01:43:46AM +1000, Finn Thain wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > I may be able help with some compute cycles, as I've just obtained a 
> > Quadra 840AV.
> 
> My buildds have been idle for a while, but there were lots of dependency
> problems. I had about a dozen xfce packages that would not build, and it
> seems to boil down to this:
> 
>  libgtk2.0-dev: Depends: libgtk2.0-0 (= 2.8.18-1)
> 
> whereas some other gtk2.0 package wants 2.8.18-6, but this package is not
> available for m68k. I have no idea why. Another problem is this:

This is because gtk+2.0 is building/failed. I'd say to dep-wait them on
libgtk2.0-dev (>= 2.8.18-6).

>  kdelibs4-dev: Depends: kdelibs4c2a (= 4:3.5.3-1) but it is not going to be installed

This is because kdelibs is building/failed. I'd say to dep-wait them on
kdelibs4-dev (>= 4:3.5.4-3). (I hope to recompiling binutils will allow
kdelibs to build.)

The other thing is anything sdl-dependent on libsdl1.2debian (>=
1.2.11-1). Hmmm, that should've been uploaded by now.

> More CPU power is good, but unsatisfiable build-deps or broken binutils are
> the bigger problem. I don't think binutils are that bad, but I did not check
> for a while.

The binutils problem is really a gcc optimiser problem. If you want an
idea of what our 193 node dependency tree looks like, check out
<http://people.debian.org/~smarenka/m68kbugs/reports/blockers.html>.

-- 
Stephen R. Marenka     If life's not fun, you're not doing it right!
<stephen@marenka.net>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: