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

Re: ara bug suggestions & buildd states

On Thursday 24 March 2005 13:49, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> George Danchev <danchev@spnet.net> writes:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have some questions I would like to clarify for myself regarding some
> > suggestions given within ara's [1] bug #290338 (ara: [m68k] FTBFS
> > dh_testdir: I have no package to build).
> >
> > Thiemo Seufer suggests forcing the package to cause dep-wait onto build
> > by wanting a build-dependency which could not be satistied for that arch
> > [m68k for example]. Looking at w-b states explanation [2] this will
> > require a human intervention and the dependency wont be satisfied anyway.
> > So why bother humans, when this can be done automatically ? What is the
> > whole idea behind this suggestion, am I missing something ?
> The package depends on a compiler for native code to build the binary
> package. It should have the depends anyway. The only way to write that
> depends though is to Build-Depend on the native compiled compiler.
> Imho a shortcoming in ocaml packaging.

why build-depending on the virtual package of ocaml-best-compilers can't do 
that for us ?

> > Since ara 1.0.8 has been in testing for long time, seems it has already
> > been done what Goswin von Brederlow has suggested. Now, what is FTBFS and
> > what are the best practices to contact the ftp-masters (obviously someone
> > else had done the job for me ;-).
> To avoid the FTBFS ara must be added to packages-arch-specific.
> Otherwise the package will try to build and either fail with
> Build-Depends missing or no packages to build. Thiemo and I find the
> missing Build-Depends a clearer indication that this is not ment to be
> build.

Sorry for the dumb question again, but my asking was 'what the meaning of 
FTBFS is'. I guess that you are talking about a packages-arch-specific list 
at the buildd side, not somewhere in ara's packaging files. Is that correct ?

> > Anyway we have ara 1.0.9 [3] at the alioth svn which solves these things
> > accordingly (e.g. one can successfully build the source package on m68k)
> > and will be rebuild soon after the last ocaml transition.
> Huh, what changed? Do you build seperate bytecode for each arch
> without native code again?

Of cource we don't. If there are no native code compiler on that arch, the 
arch-dependant part is not to be built, in fact a message if left to the 
buildd admins that it should not be built on that arch.


Hope that will suffice as a hint for admins to add us to 
packages-arch-specific list ?

pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <danchev.fccf.net/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint    1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB 

Reply to: