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

Re: Packages not making it into testing

On Mon, 14 May 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:

> On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 11:11:01AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 May 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > php4 is waiting on at least sablotron and libgd, but those packages are
> > > waiting on recompiles of:
> > >       linuxconf
> > >       linuxconf-dev
> > >       linuxconf-i18n
> > >       linuxconf-x
> > linuxconf doesn't build on arm.
> Note that the packages listed need to be rebuild on all arches, including
> i386.

This will happan automatically in the case of linuxconf when the problem
on ARM gets fixed...

> > > It'd be helpful if someone could go through sid looking for packages
> > > that depend on old libs that aren't available anymore and getting
> > > rebuilds done.
> > In other words: Someone should file bugs for broken dependencies that are
> > listed at [1].
> Filing bugs != Fixing problems; in this case, it's probably entirely
> possible to do most of the rebuilds without bothering the maintainers at
> all. I'm pretty sure Ben had scripts to automate this during the potato
> freeze for sparc, eg. That's not to say that bugs and NMUs aren't the way
> to go here, just that there are other otpions.

This works in the case when there are dependencies on obsolete libraries
that a simple recompile fixes, but in many cases a change to the source
package is needed what means that you must file a bug report.

> Note that binary only recompiles should be versioned as either:
> 	5.4.6-3   -> 5.4.6-3.0.1
> or	5.4.6-3.1 -> 5.4.6-3.1.1

Perhaps a silly question: What't the correct versioning for a binary NMU
of a native package with version 1.2.3? A source NMU would have version
1.2.3-0.1 (according to the Developer's Reference), so should a binary NMU
have 1.2.3-0.0.1?

> Cheers,
> aj



Nicht weil die Dinge schwierig sind wagen wir sie nicht,
sondern weil wir sie nicht wagen sind sie schwierig.

Reply to: