Re: Building the whole Debian archive with GCC 4.1: a summary

[Daniel Schepler <schepler@math.berkeley.edu>]

Le Lundi 27 Mars 2006 11:54, vous avez écrit :
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Daniel Schepler wrote:
> > By the way: my latest experiment is putting in a hook script to build
> > everything as if it were a binNMU, with a version of e.g. 1.2-3+pb1, in
> > order to help apt distinguish those versions from the official ones.  The
> > good news is that most packages build with no problem like this; on the
> > other hand, a few of them FTBFS or break.  What would be the appropriate
> > severity for such bugs?  I'm leaning towards "serious" myself, since the
> > release team should expect to be able to schedule binNMU's without
> > worrying whether they'll work.
>
> Could you provide a list of affected packages (and maintainers)
> somewhere?  (And yes, I think serious is probably the correct severity
> should you decide to file bugs)

I haven't gotten all the way through, so I don't have a complete list.  I'm 
planning to start filing bugs soon, though, and I could classify them with a 
usertag if you like (once I figure out how assigning them works).

Just off the top of my head, some of the more notable ones are:

apt -- The only one in a pbuilder chroot to fail to build.
libsoup -- Builds but with a broken shlibs file, causing several other 
packages to FTBFS locally.
pango1.0 -- The only one I've filed a bug on so far (#358127).
jfsutils -- The udeb for some reason gets built as a .deb instead, which I 
noticed from its showing up in the new packages list in aptitude.

And by the way, I also won't catch versioned dependencies on
"foo-data (= ${Source-Version})", since I build the arch-indep packages here 
too.
-- 
Daniel Schepler