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

Re: Bug#241689: I'm going to NMU this

Scott James Remnant <scott@netsplit.com> writes:

> On Sun, 2004-08-29 at 16:47 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> this build-essential bug is holding up the sarge amd64 release and needs
>> to be fixed asap. The RM team has agreed to let such trivial amd64 changes into
>> and I plan to NMU build-essential unless you fix it yourself.
> I wasn't aware:
> (a) there was going to be a "sarge amd64 release"

The debian amd64 team is doing an inofficial one.

> (b) that you were a Debian Developer therefore *could* NMU a package.

I don't need to be a DD to NMU something.

> (c) that a wishlist bug against an "informational list of packages" was
>     more important than the hundreds of RC bugs still outstanding
>     against sarge.

The package fails to build from source and as far as amd64 goes this
is severity serious. For me that is far more important than hundreds
of RC bugs that are not against build-essential or base packages.

I also fail to see how any of this is any reason not to fix such a
trivial bug.

> I have stated many times over that I do not consider the build-essential
> package to be a "this is what build-essential *should* look like" list
> but "this is what is *currently* build-essential" list.

I realy don't care as long as it builds and works.

> If you actually bother to look at the current package you'll see that
> the content of essential-packages-list-* for those architectures not yet
> in sid is the string:
> "No essential packages list is available for $ARCH in sid"
> While one of those could be added for amd64, I don't see the urgency
> this close to release.

The urgency is to get the sarge sources to build for amd64 so the
amd64 release deviates as little as possible from the official sarge
and the RM team has agreed to allow such changes through t-p-u.

> You can obtain a "filled" essential-packages-list-amd64 file for your
> archive yourselves by running make-esslist.sh with a different mirror=
> and arches= setting.

Read the Bug report again. We have and the list is identical to the
i386 list.

> In fact I suspect there are more changes to build-essential required for
> amd64 than just this now.  I understand that there is a dependency on

No there aren't as stated in the bugreport. We havemore packages
compiled than any other !i386 arch with the list as it is.

> gcc/g++ 3.4?  If that's correct you'll need to submit a change to the
> build-essential list itself as that currently specifies 3.3:
> Something like:
> 	gcc (>= 3:3.3) [!amd64] | gcc (>= 3:3.4) [amd64]
> 	g++ (>= 3:3.3) [!amd64] | g++ (>= 3:3.4) [amd64]
> is probably sufficient.  You can use this bug report to file the actual
> requirement, rather than opening a new one.

That is also just your imagination and it would have been stated in
the bugreport if it were true. The amd64 port still uses gcc-3.4 and
has the normal gcc-defaults package that builds gcc as link to

The list is and always has been identical to the i386 one.

> While I ordinarily welcome NMUs on my packages that fix valid bugs that
> I haven't had the time to look at, this is not one of those.  This
> change would be invalid, and I specifically ask you not to upload it to
> the Debian archive.  Instead follow the changes I've outlined for your
> own amd64 archive just as the other derivatives who include amd64 have
> done.

Everything you outlined has been followed. Do we have to go through
the same game you did with dpkg and call the ctte to overrule you?

Sorry, I can't respect your wish not to add the file but we could
compromise with a file like the other non sid archs have with "No
essential packages list is available for amd64 in sid" if that is your

> Once amd64 has been added to sid, build-essential in sid will be updated
> to carry an essential-packages-list-amd64 file.

Yeah, and amd64 can't be added to sid till it has build-essential and
it can't have build-essential till it is in sid and it can't be in sid
till it has build-essential.....

> Scott
> -- 
> Have you ever, ever felt like this?
> Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?


Reply to: