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

Re: [xml/sgml-pkgs] Re: Build failure: cannot find -lz

On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 07:49:30AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 12:29:15PM -0700, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 08:50:48PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > > So yes, please re-add the dependency on libxml2-dev for the time being.

> > > We're still not so much in a rush.

> > Yes, we *are*.  The RC bug count for etch is currently moving in the wrong
> > direction, and having dozens of FTBFS bugs added all of a sudden contributes
> > to this problem.

> Well, it got in the wrong direction because of
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=370436;msg=37

That's one contributing factor.  But that's not a reason to compound the
problem and push us even farther from release.

> Last time I looked at some gnome packages, one of the few dpatches was a
> relibtoolize one... The change has been done more than 10 days ago now,
> it it were to break dozens, or possibly even *hundreds* of packages, it
> would already have done so.

Yes, and the nature of the breakage is that it causes build failures.  We
don't rebuild all packages every day, or every week; so these bugs aren't
likely to be found all at once, but they still would be RC and need to be
addressed before release.

> But I'll fix the issue anyways.

Thank you very much for doing this.

> > > and then let's see if we need the dependency again if the time
> > > is too short to fix everything.

> > We already know that time is too short, because this change will cause
> > literally dozens, or possibly even *hundreds*, of RC FTBFS bugs that will
> > eat up the time of everyone trying to push for release, distracting from the
> > ones that actually *need* to be fixed on their respective packages.

> Speaking of RC bugs that *need* or not to be fixed, I'm still waiting to
> know if i can ignore-etch #377418...

I don't see how that could be ignorable.  The porters have stated that the
platform detection in the package, aside from not being compliant with
policy, is genuinely wrong for the s390 Debian port.  The only way it could
be ignored would be for the s390 porters to commit to the use of linux32 (or
whatever the s390 equivalent command is) for etch.

> > If you want to try to work out which packages can be usefully updated to the
> > Debian libtool and submit patches, I'm all in favor of this -- but in the
> > meantime, please don't leave libxml2-dev in unstable in a state that breaks
> > our ability to build large portions of the archive.

> There are 2 ways of solving the problem: either add the dependency on
> zlib1g-dev back, or remove the dependency_libs from the .la.
> The former has the drawback to break static linking using libtool, but
> is it a real problem ?

Fine with me.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: