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

Undocumented changes to Debian source packages



Hello debian-amd64,

I wanted to check whether my packages worked on amd64 and after much
puzzling because I could not rebuild packages available on alioth.
I finally get across the following discrepancy between Debian source
package and source packages available on debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org:

Here a diff /in extenso/ of pari_2.1.5-5.diff.gz from the Debian mirrors
and the one available at
<http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/pure64/pool/unstable/main/source/p/pari/pari_2.1.5-5.diff.gz>

%zdiff -u pari_2.1.5-5.diff.gz  pari_2.1.5-5.diff.gz.pure64
--- -   Thu Nov 25 17:58:43 2004
+++ /tmp/pari_21.5-5.diff.gz.pure64.12076       Thu Nov 25 17:58:43 2004
@@ -587,7 +587,7 @@
 +      test   -f pic-lib || $(MAKE) -f debian/rules build-nonpic-lib
 +      $(MAKE) gp
 +ifeq (,$(findstring notest,$(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS)))
-+      $(MAKE) dobench
++#     $(MAKE) dobench
 +endif
 +      touch build-arch-stamp
 +

I am not terribly happy about that. Whoever made that change should at
least add a comment or a changelog entry, etc. explaining what is the
problem and how the patch fix it. Bumping the version and contacting me
would be a plus.

Since I cannot know who made that change, I post here my comment on that
patch:

This patch is ineffective: it only hides the fact that pari-gp is broken
on that platform by disabling the test-suite 

I am not terribly happy about that either. I don't think disabling
test-suites to build more packages is the way to go.

I plan to write a proper patch to really solve this issue.
(some int* is incorrectly used as a long*).  However, have I been
notified sooner the fix would probably already in the archive.

Anyway, good luck to the Debian amd64 port effort.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Attachment: pgpuGOwMo7M8a.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: