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

Re: Clustalw in danger


I leave the fully quoted text below to enable debian-devel
readers to understand the problem.

I was not able to access raptor (s390) and on casals (mips)
I've got

$ apt-get source clustalw
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
E: Unable to find a source package for clustalw

Is there any chance to move clustalw to testing?

Kind regards


On Sat, 28 Oct 2006, Charles Plessy wrote:

Hi Steffen, hi Andreas,

Actually it clustalw is autobuilt, and this seems to have created the
problem: apparently the autobuilders do not manage to trigger a build on
some architectures. As a consequence, clustalw is out of date on s390
and mipsel, and this prevents the testing migration.

To solve the problem, I asked on -devel for volunteers to build. It
helped, because at that moment ia64 and mips were also missing, and this
was solved by Steve McIntyre. I wrote on debian-mips and debian-s390 and
had no answer. I then filled a bug against ftp.debian.org (395030),
asking for the removal of clustalw on mipsel and s390, but the
administrators of ftpmaster seem to be process the bugs less than once
per trimester. I went on #debian-devel on IRC this morning to ask for
help, but was advised to run away as they were discussing about the
conflicts which shake the Debian community.

Obviously, we are on our own. I think that I did everything I could do. I
know that it is annoying to do some stupid work (as this is exactly what
I did), but I think that only Andreas or another DD can solve the
problem by digging in the Debian machine park for finding a place where
to build clustalw on the missing arches.

I think that what happend to clustalw shows that the current unofficial
autobuilding process is very fragile. As if I understand correctly one
release manager is implicated in buildd.net, I will wait for the Etch
release before bringing the subject to -devel. I will propose to list
the package which are "not autobuildable because they are illegal", and
if their number is as I expect less than five, I will propose them to be
marked "not for us" on every buildd, so that non-free can be autobuilt.

Well, after this short break, it is time to watch a japanese movie and
to eat dessert :)

Have a nice day,

Wako, Saitama, Japan

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-med-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org


Reply to: