Re: A question about update-excuses (was Re: testing is broken)
David Starner wrote:
>If I understand the problems with the ARM buildd, the problem is not
>with the packages, but instead GCC, which is a touch flaky on the ARM.
You're right that ARM gcc isn't as reliable as it might be, but that only
accounts for a handful of unbuildable packages. (Though, sadly, they always
seem to be particularly visible ones: sendmail, perl and glibc have all been
recently stricken in this way.)
The majority of failures are missing or broken build-depends. It would be
nice to have lintian enhanced to detect more cases of this kind of thing by
comparing the build-depends list to the information in the central dependency
list and the Packages files. A lot of other ARM failures are caused by
config.sub being too old and similar trivial configury failures - fortunately,
unlike build-depends, these don't tend to regress over time.