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

Bug#192347: gcc-3.3: gpc-2.1-3.3-doc not built from source?

On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 08:51:28AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > gpc-2.1-3.3 | 1:3.3.20030409-0pre8 |      unstable | alpha, hppa, ia64, ...
> >                                  ^
> > gpc-2.1-3.3-doc | 1:3.3.20030409-0pre6 |      unstable | all
> >                                      ^
> > Is this deliberate? The pre7 and pre8 .changes both list the -doc package
> > in the Binary: field, but don't seem to build it.
> Got complaints, that all binaries, which _can_ be built, should be in
> the control file 

Dunno about that; I was only saying that because it made me wonder if you
really did mean to have the -doc not build for Debian.

> (somebody (Ryan, lamont??) told me that gcc-3.0 was
> removed from the archive, because the control file only contained the
> binaries which were actually built).

We don't keep old packages around -- so if you upload foo_1.1.dsc and
that no longer builds foo-doc.deb, then foo-doc_1.0_i386.deb won't be
kept around; and if foo-doc isn't listed in the Binary: field, it'll
be semi-automatically removed. If it is listed in the Binary: field,
we'll probably assume something weird's going on and ask first; but the
end result is that it needs to be removed or updated either way.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

  ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- 
        you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''

Reply to: