[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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.


Reply to: