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

Re: automake transition breakages

* Ondřej Surý (ondrej@sury.org) wrote:
> Hi Eric,
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013, at 4:50, Eric Dorland wrote:
> > * Ondřej Surý (ondrej@sury.org) wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > recent automake transition to 1.14 broke (FTBFS) at least two of my
> > > packages.
> > > 
> > > Would it be possible to coordinate the (next) transition better than
> > > upload&deal with breakages like we do with the rest of our packages?
> > 
> > Did the transition from automake 1.13 to automake 1.14 cause your
> > package to FTBFS? Can you point me at logs because that's not supposed
> > to happen under the new versioning scheme upstream is following (ie
> > 1.X versions should now be backwards compatible). 
> > 
> > If you were going from an earlier version to 1.14 (or 1.13) I have
> > seen a few reports of problems with unit test framework.
> I have seen these two breakages (so far):
> libgd2: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=724841
> gyrus: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=724917
> both packages has been successfully built in wheezy (gyrus) or jessie
> (libgd2).
> > Right now the automake package is always tracking the latest upstream
> > version and new versions sometimes break things. If you're worried
> > about that kind of breakage then build depending on a specific version
> > of automake might be a better bet. If people don't like this current
> > scheme we can discuss if the current scheme is a bad idea.
> I am not worried about the scheme, but about the process.
> I don't know if this was an one time fling, or it will happen more
> frequently, but if the updates starts breaking things more often then
> uploading the new automake version to experimental and then trying to
> rebuild (at least part of) the archive, or adding an lintian checks,
> etc. would be a good way how to improve the process.

Doing a rebuild is something I could try for next time. I'm not really
familiar with how to do that though, can you point me in the right
direction? What sort of lintian checks did you have in mind?
> But maybe I am just an exception to the rule with my two out of ~80
> packages breaking.
> Ondrej

Eric Dorland <eric@kuroneko.ca>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: hooty@jabber.com

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: