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

Re: FTFBS in sarge

Robin <robin@debian.org> writes:

> Hi Goswin,
> Goswin von Brederlow (brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de) wrote on 09:21:50AM 05/09/04:
>> Why not fix it yourself? Since you seem to use clisp I guess you are
>> familiar with it?
> I actually did try to fix the bug in clisp but I didn't succeed at it
> because I didn't know enough about MIPS assembly in order to follow
> through on it.  My requests on the debian-mips mailing lists all went
> unanswered[1].

Have you tried talking to the gcc maintainer team to find some mips
guys directly? Or to the linux-mips mailinglist? Maybe some non Debian
person can help.

>> Do you think it wise to exclude packages from an arch just because it
>> has some bug? If the maintainer can't be bothered to fix a bug the
>> package should not enter testing. Excluding an arch just works around
>> semi orphaned packages.
> Just in case you didn't get it, the problem is not even in *my* package.

It wasn't adressed against your package. Sorry.

> The clisp package at some point built the FFI module for mips, which let
> my mcvs package be built and propagated into testing. Then the clisp
> maintainer turned off building the FFI module for certain architectures
> (including mips), making it impossible for mcvs to build successfully for
> those architectures from that point on. I agree with you that the *clisp*
> package w/o FFI on some architectures shouldn't have made it into testing
> but it did, and that's how things stand now.

Have you considered dropping just the clisp needing parts for not
fully supported archs? On i386 I don't see a Depends: clisp in mcvs so
it seems to be usefull without it at first glance. Maybe that would
solve the problem.

Since you have a problem with the language support for the specific
arch it is very hard to find someone qualified to fix this.

> - robin
> [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mips/2004/05/msg00141.html
>     http://lists.debian.org/debian-mips/2004/06/msg00035.html


Reply to: