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

Re: getting packages to rebuild

Jay Berkenbilt <ejb@ql.org> writes:

>>   >  * On all three packages, the arm build failed because of an
>>   >    unsatisfiable build dependency that was the result of a timing
>>   >    problem.  These should succeed now as the problem with the
>>   >    dependent package has been cleared.  I emailed
>>   >    arm@buildd.debian.org to request these to be rebuilt.  Is there
>>   In this case you don't have to do anything about arm for your package:
>>   http://www.buildd.net/cgi/package_status?all_pkg=xerces25&searchtype=go
>>   arm: libs/xerces25_2.5.0-2: Dep-Wait by buildd_arm-europa [extra:out-of-date]
>>     Dependencies: libicu28-dev
>>     Previous state was Building until 2004 Jun 17 20:04:28
> Okay, thanks.  I had been looking at build logs and saw the maybe-failed
> but I didn't check the status.  (I didn't know about this, though I
> had a bookmark to buildd.debian.net.  Oops.)
>>   BUT:
>>   arm: libs/icu28_2.8-3: Building by buildd_arm-netwinder [optional:uncompiled]
>>     Previous state was Needs-Build until 2004 Jun 13 02:33:44
>>   You might want to check this out. It certainly isn't still
>>   building. Did it fail? Should it be retried? Does it need bugsfixes?
>>   Check for buildd logs and bugreports.
> Yes, it seems the most recent arm build failed, but yet the current
> icu28 (2.8-3) is in testing.  Perhaps someone built it manually.
> There are no bugs posted again icu28.

In testing but not in unstable for arm? Or in testing without arm

>>   Check buildd.net:
>>   arm: libs/xerces23_2.3.0-3: Dep-Wait by buildd_arm-europa [extra:out-of-date]
>>   mips: libs/xerces23_2.3.0-3: Not-For-Us [extra:out-of-date]
>>   mipsel: libs/xerces23_2.3.0-3: Installed by rmurray-repeat [extra:out-of-date]
>>   Those two puzzle me. Why does mipsel build on mipsel and every other
>>   arch but is not-for-us on mips? Unless you have a good reason not to
>>   support mips please mention that to our leader too.
> Hmm.... what does Not-For-Us mean?  My packages all had either
> Architecture: any or Architecture: all, so I don't see why this would
> happen.


    Certain specific packages are architecture-specific; for instance,
    "lilo", an i386 boot loader, should not be rebuilt on alpha, m68k,
    or s390. ...

This is something set when a package does not support an architecture
or causes problems for buildds.

http://www.buildd.net/buildd/Packages-arch-specific is a global list
for such packages while buildd admins can put packages into the
not-for-us state for a single arch which seems to be your case.

You need to talk to the mips buildd admin to revert that.

>>   alpha: libs/xerces24_2.4.0-2: Needs-Build [extra:out-of-date]
>>   Not a big surprise there, just wait or fiond someone with an alpha to
>>   build it manually.
> Is this just not a big surprise because of the much-discussed long
> backlog?


>>   mips, mipsel, powerpc: libs/xerces24_2.4.0-2: Not-For-Us [extra:out-of-date]
>>   Why do you support even less archs?
> I'd like to know that too.  I don't think it's anything I did.  How
> would I find out?
> Thanks for your helpful and thorough response.
> --Jay

Ask the buildd admins since its not on the global list.


Reply to: