Re: Bug#192101: We need gnucash in stable
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 02:21:15PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Currently, gnucash fails to go to testing [1] because it fails to build
> on certain architectures (s390, alpha, mips{,el}, hppa, arm) while it
> builds on others (i386, powerpc, ia64, m68k, sparc). The cause for the
> failure is somewhere hidden in the guile tests.
>
> There were efforts to fix these problems, and some have been fixed (i46
> works now again). But it is unlikely that we can fix these build
> problems in a short period of time. So here is my train of thought:
I do not believe that ia64 building this time means that any bugs have
been fixed. It is probably due to some changes made upstream to
test-scm-query-string(*). Properly fixing test-scm-query-string is still
needed.
> Now we have two options:
>
> A. We drop gnucash for those architectures not supported
> (Architecture: field in debian/control). This is in favour for
> our users on i386 and powerpc etc, and no worse for those on
> other archs. As soon as I have access to these machines, I will
> try to find the error and maybe we can upload the remaining
> architectures in a later revision of sarge
I tried this before the last release and the archive maintainers were
not receptive to the idea(**). If we can get the archive maintainers to
agree to this I am all for it.
(*) As of 1.8.7, the random number generator is seeded in
test-scm-query-string to make the test results reproducible. It is
also set to do 200 iterations of the test. If you increase the number
of iterations, the test breaks on 244 on x86 on a sid box. On a RH
machine iteration 244 takes a while to finish but finishes correctly.
Note that the results are arch dependent.
(**) 'make check' was not run at the time during the build process. While
the package built on many architectures, I am quite confident that it
did not actually work. When I changed the Architecture field I got a
number of mails stating how wrong that is and against policy.
--
James (Jay) Treacy
treacy@debian.org
Reply to: