Re: more detailed testing migration info ...
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 10:12:19AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 07:09:13PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > 2) problem :
> > So, i think this is no real problem, we just need to reschedule a build
> > of these packages, i will take care of it, and ask bdale to schedule
>
> Thanks
:)))
> > 3)
> >
> > o lablgtkmathview (hppa mipsel)
> > o gmetadom (hppa) + #174246 (some -fPIC problems with shared objects).
> >
> > Well, there are 2 different problems. First there is the hppa problem.
> > lablgtkmathview depends on gmetadom which FTBFS because of #174246. This
> > bug is 70 days old, Stefano, do you have an idea of what is causing it ?
>
> No, because gmetadom building process is performed fully with autotools
> and on other archs all went well. Anyway I expect a new release of
> gmetadom in next days. I will know this evening when exactly it can be
> packages ... just wait a few hours.
If there is still problem, it would be best to ask on the debian-hppa
mailing list or something such for help on this one. But i guess the
autotools do not add a -fPIC flag as they should or something such, or
maybe it is a gcc 3.2 problem.
> > The mipsel problem is linked with libgtkmathview-dev, which fails to
> > build for both mipsel and hppa. It fails to build on mipsel because the
> > mipsel auto-builder uses rsudo, and apparently it is just a build
> > problem, probably a failure to properly clean the config.log file.
> > THe FTBFS bug is #178877,
>
> Yes and no, gtkmathview 0.4.0 FTBFS on hppa and mipsel _but_ 0.4.1,
> latest version uploaded, wasn't yet rebuilt on this arch. I was just
> waiting for the rebuilt of it to see if the problem persist. While you
> are at it could you ask also for the rebuilt of gtkmathview so that I
> can track down the problem?
Both problems are separate. The mipsel is due to sudo. Usually these
things appear because a file is created with root permissions (in some
part of the script which is run trough sudo) but cannot then cleaned as
a simple user. The failure was :
# Add here commands to configure the package.
./configure --with-t1lib --prefix=/usr --mandir=\${prefix}/share/man --infodir=\${prefix}/share/info
./configure: line 1118: config.log: Permission denied
So i guess it is just that you have no permission to write the
config.log file, or that the config.log file was owned by root. You can
try building with -rsudo yourself, and should see the same problem. I
will ask debian-mipsel about it though, as i don't know who is the
mipsel autobuilder maintainer.
On hppa it is due to a missing libgdome2-cpp-smart-dev, which brings us
back to the previous problem.
> > This is a problem since gdome2-xsl apparently depends on an older
> > version of gmetadom (since it declares the libgdome2-ocaml-dev-0.1.4
> > build-dependency), but gmetadom is already 0.1.5. Still, this package
> > was not in testing, so it should not cause us any problem.
>
> Right and, anyway, I'm expecting a new release also of gdome2-xslt.
:)))
> > o camlidl ( all arches ) #174532.
> > Here it apparently is a problem with the installation of camlidl-doc.
>
> Yes, I've asked for help on camlidl a few months ago because I'm not
> using it and debugging applications which are not used is really boring.
>
> Anyway I can look at it in the week end or so ...
>
> > Now, all these are Stefano's package, who is quite busy right now. If he
> > does not have time, i think it would be ok if someone else could have a
> > look at it, and that we do an NMU of those if needed (is that ok with you,
> > Stefano ?).
>
> It's ok for me, but I suggest to wait a bit more for gmetadom and
> related packages cause new releases are imminent.
> BTW I can probably start again working on debian stuff from next week.
:)))
Friendly,
Sven Luther
>
> Cheers.
>
> --
> Stefano Zacchiroli - Undergraduate Student of CS @ Uni. Bologna, Italy
> zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} - http://www.bononia.it/zack/
> " I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I am not
> sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant! " -- G.Romney
Reply to: