On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 01:04:00AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 02:02:52AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > > Because unstable was changing between the rebuilds, some of the > > failures are likely due to churn, including multiarch work, so a > > failure does not necessarily implicate the patch being tested. > > I'm surprised that the build environment was continuing to track updates to > unstable at this time, as opposed to using a static mirror. That's an > unfortunate source of noise in the data; how can we get the list of packages > that failed to build with autodetection that didn't fail with 'debian/rules > build', to determine if they are indeed false positives? I am repeating the builds using a static mirror of unstable as of today. It'll be about three days again for the builds to complete, so should be done sometime on Wednesday. While I don't think this will provide significant new insight for the ctte, it will provide a definitive list of false positives/negatives which need fixing and/or special casing (bar those which are currently unbuildable). It will essentially be the existing lists ± a few packages. Regards, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ `- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature