Re: Bug#531581: Critical problems on hppa and ia64 buildds
Frank Küster wrote:
> Luk Claes <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> And what should one do with a bug like this? At the moment it's quite
>>> irrelevant whether one of our packages has a bogus RC bug. But what if
>>> that happens when I'm hoping for a transition to testing?
>> Are you now talking about the failure on hppa or the one on ia64 (in
>> both cases the bugs were filed by the buildd admin)?
> I'm talking about any bug that was filed against package $foo because
> package $bar FTBFS on $buildd_a, when it later turns out that the reason
> for the breakage is "something" on $buildd_a.
>> The one on hppa is as far as I can see nothing you can do about and
>> should probably be mentioned to the porters.
> That doesn't solve my problem: Should I
> - make sure that the porters, buildd admins etc. are aware of the
> problem and simply close the bug?
You might want to downgrade the bug and only close it when it is realy
>> The one on ia64 breaks the buildd's chroot and looks to be easily solved
>> by making sure that the maintainer scripts don't fail when the missing
>> command is not available.
> It could be easily solved by making sure that nothing on the buildd
> installs packages without installing their dependencies.
A patch is appreciated, thanks for your cooperation.