Thank for review, it's been on my TODO for a while.. On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 06:32:37PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > The following packages in unreleased have older versions than unstable > and the new versions don't have the armel patch applied. I filed bugs > on several of these since the patch wasn't in the BTS. We probably should > update the versions in unreleased in the meantime: > gdb 6.6.dfsg-1+armel http://experimental.debian.net/fetch.php?&pkg=gdb&ver=6.6.dfsg-2&arch=armel&stamp=1187940423&file=log&as=raw needs gobjc + gcj-4.2 build dependencies. I'm currently bootstrapping gcj so that leaves just removing gobjc build dependency on armel. Then we need to poke drow. > gettext 0.16.1-1+armel > libtool 1.5.22-4+armel This just need gcj + reschedule of build. > nspr 2.6.18-7+armel #436213. Mike was happy anough to add my patch to webkit while the nspr patch seems to have falled to void.. Let's see if poking helps. > python-numeric 24.2-7+armel > Changelog for the +armel version says "Disable lapack and blas > support.", but it was a binary-only upload so I don't know what > changes were made to the source and couldn't produce a patch. > This needs to be dealt with. Long term solution is the g77->gfortran transition[0]. As part of that I need to find out why refblas3 doesn't build on selected architectures[1] and then upload lapack3 to experimental. Then it would be more natural to upload experimental versions of refblas3, lapack3 and python-numeric to unreleased.. Now I just need to find time to execute the plan. > gcc-defaults 1.56+armel > Newer version in unstable has the armel patches. > But new version hasn't built on armel yet for some reason. It needs gcj-4.2 as well[2]: For building states, you can use buildd.net[3] to find where the package is. The Failed/Dep-Wait/Building/Not-For-Us lists need walking through as well. > linux-kernel-headers 2.6.18-7+armel > Removed from unstable. Needs manual gnuab admin action to remove afaik. > freedts #441736 > The patch in this one could use a better explanation than I > managed. I'll comment. Cheers, Riku [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-toolchain/2007/07/msg00000.html [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-toolchain/2007/08/msg00012.html (amd64 and armel build failures are identical) [2] http://experimental.debian.net/fetch.php?&pkg=gcc-defaults&ver=1.61&arch=armel&stamp=1188871681&file=log&as=raw [3] http://unstable.buildd.net/index-armel.html -- "rm -rf" only sounds scary if you don't have backups
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature