Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
On Monday 14 March 2005 21:35, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Looking just at the ones I reported:
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?which=submitter&data=brederlo%
>40informatik.uni-tuebingen.de&archive=no
>
> #249397: FTBFS: amd64 missing in Architecture list
> Package: mga-vid; Severity: important; Reported by: Goswin Brederlow
> <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>; Tags: patch; 301 days old.
mga-vid: Kernel driver for the back-end scaler on Matrox cards + Module
aliases and test program
The package was NMUd a year ago: there are 4 bugs > 1 year fixed-in-NMU. The
patch would be trivially applied in a porter-NMU.
> # #249440: inetutils: Wrong Priorities and Sections in debain/control break
> debian-amd64 Package: inetutils; Severity: important; Reported by: Goswin
> Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>; merged with #205487,
> #266666, #290700; 301 days old.
This is a problem between more arches than amd64 and the rest. Read the buglog
for 205487, which is merged to that bug and almost a year older.
Also the package is currently 'optional' in the control file and checking the
source:
debian/control.in:
Priority: @inetutils:Priority@
There already seems to be infrastructure for resolving this. Maybe you want to
take another look at this issue?
> # #251765: FTBFS: missing amd64 support
> Package: scm; Severity: important; Reported by: Goswin von Brederlow
> <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>; Tags: patch; 288 days old.
Maintainer acknowledged the problem and promised to put the patch into the
next upload. There was never a next upload. Current version in unstable is a
NMU of the then-current version, there is no version in testing.
> # #252760: FTBFS: architecture missing
> Package: mkrboot; Severity: important; Reported by: Goswin von Brederlow
> <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>; 282 days old.
>
> # #252771: FTBFS: wrong architecture
> Package: bsign; Severity: important; Reported by: Goswin von Brederlow
> <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>; 282 days old.
>
> # #254089: FTBFS: test for res_mkquery is broken
> Package: mtr; Severity: important; Reported by: Goswin von Brederlow
> <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>; Tags: patch; 274 days old.
>
> # #255725: FTBFS: amd64 needs Build-Depends svgalig1-dev too
> Package: cthugha; Severity: important; Reported by: Goswin von Brederlow
> <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>; 265 days old.
>
> ....
>
> That suggests that FTBFS bugs for SCC archs will be ignored just as
> long, 1/2 - 3/4 of the planed release cycle. Now imagine a bug in fsck
> that destroys data being left open for so long.
The first three bugs are maintnance-gone-cold, fix-in-the-works but not yet
verified and maintnance-gone-cold. Two out of three are RC problems even
without amd64, the third is being worked on and probably already solved. I
don't want to research the other bugs but I don't believe the situation to be
significantly different.
Regards, David
--
- hallo... wie gehts heute?
- *hust* gut *rotz* *keuch*
- gott sei dank kommunizieren wir über ein septisches medium ;)
-- Matthias Leeb, Uni f. angewandte Kunst, 2005-02-15
Reply to: