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

Re: FTBFS for Archetecture all package (Bug#167049)

On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 07:29:29AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Nov 2002, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > Does documentation package of "Architecture: all" which has been build
> > properly in the stable but not in the unstable due to tetex differences
> > deserve to receive "serious" bug (RC bug) report or not?
> Yes, since it HAS the bug. It should, however, be tagged "sid", to make it
> clear that the package in "woody" doesn't have the problem.
> > To me preventing documentation package usable in all architecture as a
> > binary package due to the build dependency is a counter productive act
> > and, with my this post, it will not happen intentionally in the future,
> > I wish.
> I am not completely sure I understood you correctly.  Adding the
> build-dependency did what to your package to make it not usable in the
> "all' architecture ?

My package is USABLE in ALL architecture :) 

It failed Junichi's autobuilder when he was doing FTBFS bug hunt.
This is second time I got this type bug from him.

> > To me "normal" should have been suffice.  (I could have lowered the
> > priority too.)
> Did the severity of the bug cause trouble with "testing" or something like
> that?

It is RC bug which prevent it to be moved to testing.  
I would love to get "normal" bug report from Junichi which make me fix
source. I have no problem with it.

> > "A package that does not build from source is a serious violation of
> > policy. It's not about usability process." is a bit stretch for me.
> Well, a package that does not build from source IS very bad indeed.  One
> that does not build from source in certain arches is not that bad (since it
> DOES build from source in other arches), but it still needs to be fixed.

Very bad indeed. Although I do not believe it is not so bad as to prevent
perfectly usable documentation package to move to testing.

> > sponsor were not perfect in testing.  For documentation writers, last
> > thing we want to do is wait too long for stable version of program
> > infrastructures and miss timing for release.
> Well, bugs will happen, and will be fixed.  However, bugs in documentation
> packages are considered as serious as a bug in a ordinary package, and I
> doubt this will change...

Are you talking about documentation content.  That's a different issue.

This is a issue of SGML source build failure on regression test
autobuilder run by Junichi. 

For the rest, see my post following Santiago Vila.
~\^o^/~~~ ~\^.^/~~~ ~\^*^/~~~ ~\^_^/~~~ ~\^+^/~~~ ~\^:^/~~~ ~\^v^/~~~ +++++
        Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org>   Cupertino CA USA, GPG-key: A8061F32
 .''`.  Debian Reference: post-installation user's guide for non-developers
 : :' : http://qref.sf.net and http://people.debian.org/~osamu
 `. `'  "Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software" --- Social Contract

Reply to: