Re: AMD64 autobuilder(s), KDE 3.5
Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 10:50:18AM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
>> (Please CC me)
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'd like to know if the amd64 autobuilder periodically attempts
>> to build packages that used to fail to build. It seems to me
>> that it is waiting for new uploads only.
>
> No it doesn't. If it failed it failed, and gets into failed
> state, after there is a bug in the BTS about it. If it's not in
> failed state it probably means that I know there is a problem
> with it and that I'm ussually waiting on something.
>
> Also note that a if something failed to build, it's a "maybe
> failed", not a failed.
So, "maybe failed" means that the build will be retried as
soon as the dependency can be met. "failed" means that it
really failed to compile, so it is not worth retrying until
a fix is provided.
>> Currently, it seems that KDE 3.5 is still not completely built
>> on amd64 and I bet that kdemultimedia which used to fail on
>> January 10th, can now be built since xine-lib has been fixed.
>
> It was waiting on xine-lib, which only was build on Jan 13 at
> 04:12 UTC+1, and was only in the archive at 9:17 UTC+0, like 30
> minutes before you've send this mail. kdemultimedia build then
> started at 14:20 UTC+1, and was in the archive at 14:17 UTC+0.
Yes, I noticed that, right after writing my mail :-P
> Then kdeaddons started building at 16:24 UTC+1, and
> kdeaccessibility at 16:34. They were both waiting on
> kdemultimedia. They were also both in the archive at 16:32
> UTC+0.
>
>> BTW, is anyone following following the progress of KDE on amd64?
>
> No, I follow everything that gets build. I perfectly knew that
> it failed to build and that it was waiting on a new xine-lib, and
> that it had an NMU. It also needed 2 NMU's because the first one
> didn't change the xlibs-dev dependency.
Thank you very much for bringing those clarifications!
>
> PS: And everything happend without ever reading this email, I
> just saw someone reply to it.
I'm sorry I don't get it :-P
--
Jérôme Marant
Reply to: