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

Re: ara bug suggestions & buildd states

George Danchev <danchev@spnet.net> writes:

> 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 ?

You can't Build-Depend on a virtual package. Breaks randomly.

>> > 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 ?

Fails to build from source


>> > 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.
> http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/ara/trunk/debian/?rev=0&sc=0
> Hope that will suffice as a hint for admins to add us to 
> packages-arch-specific list ?

# $Id: Packages-arch-specific,v 1.551 2005/03/23 16:21:33 lamont Exp $
# Please email comments, corrections to james@nocrew.org and/or lamont@debian.org
# See ChangeLog for history.


Reply to: