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

Re: gmc

On Sun 20 Dec 1998, John Goerzen wrote:

> The Alpha version of this package has no "gmc" binary, but the i386 version
> does.  How did this happen?

The build process apparently simply continues when part of the process
fails (in violation of policy, I might add).

> I'm a bit disturbed about the lack of testing going on lately.  The gnome
> packages depend on things that don't exist, gmc doesn't have its very own
> binary...

When "frozen" goes into "deepfreeze" and we get a chance to catch up,
_then_ you can get disturbed. For now we're pretty much at the whim
of what the primary maintainers upload into frozen.

AFA gmc is concerned, I'd suggest reporting a bug? I can't say anything
about it, as I don't believe I've built it before. You could dig up who
uploaded the alpha version and ask him about it.

> I'm having trouble building gmc myself, but I did get gnome-core and friends
> built and uploaded.

Argh. So yet another message I sent was no longer relevant.  This
is what I mean about following up on yourself! Having four threads
going on about the same basic subject isn't going to help us get
the alpha port stable...

Paul Slootman
home: paul@wurtel.demon.nl | work: paul@murphy.nl | debian: paul@debian.org
http://www.wurtel.demon.nl | Murphy Software,   Enschede,   the Netherlands

Reply to: