On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 22:34:52 +0200 Patrick Winnertz <patrick.winnertz@skolelinux.org> wrote: > as a QA effort the whole archive was rebuilt over the weekend to catch > build-failures, whether a package can be build three tmes in a row (unpack, > build, clean, build,clean, build). What happens about false-positives? No script is perfect - it appears that this script has got it wrong in the case of libgpeschedule at least. > This is the second effort to get rid of those issues. The first effort was > announced by Martin-Zobel Helas on 16 May 2007 [0]. Something went awry between the two because my packages were fine on the first one, now just one of them is reported to fail in a way that I simply cannot replicate. > This must undo any effects that the build and binary targets may > have had, except that it should leave alone any output files created > in the parent directory by a run of a binary target. AFAICT the clean target is fine. > Please note that building a package twice in a row is a release goal for > lenny. And libgpeschedule does build two, three or more times in a row. I don't understand why the test routine shows a failure when AFAICT none exists. The build log makes no sense and appears to be incomplete so I have no way of replicating the build and no way to "fix" it. Unless someone can demonstrate whether something is actually going wrong and give me some ideas on how to fix it, I'm going to have to close 442636 as an artifact of a broken tool. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpO1YopMEwb5.pgp
Description: PGP signature