Re: How to handle bugs in port packages
On Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 12:51:24PM +0100, Gregor Hoffleit wrote:
> I found two cases of packages where some port is broken, while the source
> package for the primary build architecture does work. I wonder how to
> handle these cases.
>
> The first one is fetchmail_5.2.3-1_powerpc.deb. Somehow it still includes
> /usr/bin/fetchmailconf, which is also available in the package fetchmailconf.
> fetchmail_5.2.3-1_i386.deb doesn't include /usr/bin/fetchmailconf.
>
> Then, there's sketch_0.6.3-1_sparc.deb, which doesn't include the
> necessary paxmodule.so file. Build-dependencies were only added in a later
> version, may this caused the problem.
>
> How do I handle these cases ? Should I file a bug against ftp.debian.org
> saying that the ported packages are invalid ? Or should I file a bug against
> the package itself ?
File a bug against the package itself. Most (all?) ports use autobuilders
so if the autobuilder failed to build it correctly there must be a bug
in the package itself.
Greetings,
Christian
--
Christian Meder, email: meder@isr.uni-stuttgart.de
What's the railroad to me ?
I never go to see
Where it ends.
It fills a few hollows,
And makes banks for the swallows,
It sets the sand a-blowing,
And the blackberries a-growing.
(Henry David Thoreau)
Reply to: