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 arm: libs/xerces25_2.5.0-2: Dep-Wait by buildd_arm-europa [extra:out-of-date]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
support?
>> 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 arm: libs/xerces23_2.3.0-3: Dep-Wait by buildd_arm-europa [extra:out-of-date]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 mips: libs/xerces23_2.3.0-3: Not-For-Us [extra:out-of-date]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 mipsel: libs/xerces23_2.3.0-3: Installed by rmurray-repeat [extra:out-of-date]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.
http://people.debian.org/~wouter/wanna-build-states
not-for-us
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?
yes.
>> 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.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: