[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

Stephen R. Marenka     If life's not fun, you're not doing it right!

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: