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

Re: Packages getting marked not-for-us

On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 09:57:49PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Frank Lichtenheld]
> > While I agree with the general sentiment, there is really nothing
> > "mysterious" about checking buildd.debian.org (and calling it that
> > is just finding excuses for maintainers that don't spend the time to
> > check the status of their packages).
> I would rather have maintainers spend time improving their packages
> instead of wasting it trying to figure out why some architecture
> fail/refuses to build their package.
In some (many?) cases that leads to direct improvement of the package.
I have had a package quit building on a particular architecture and it
ended revealing itself as a problem with something in the build system
parsing compiler output of all things (the shift from gcc 4.2 to 4.3 on
some arches triggered the failure).  It would have eventually manifested
itself on the main architectures when they switched.  As it was, I was
able to get upstream to fix the package will ahead of the switch in



Roberto C. Sánchez

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: