Re: Bug#336283: ara: [m68k] FTBFS
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 11:02:31AM +0200, George Danchev wrote:
> On Sunday 30 October 2005 11:14, Sven Luther wrote:
> --cut--
> > > > # The arch-dependent packages are only available on archs supported by
> > > > ocamlopt There are no native code compilers on arch m68k so this
> > > > package arch-dependant part should not build on it. dpkg-genchanges -B
> > > > -mDebian/m68k Build Daemon <cts-aahz@debian.org> dpkg-genchanges:
> > > > arch-specific upload - not including arch-independent packages
> > > > dpkg-genchanges: failure: cannot read files list file: No such file or
> > > > directory
> > >
> > > Well, we end up needing dpkg-genchanges and dpkg-buildpackage with
> > > support for building only architecture-independant parts of the package
> > > and not architecture-dependent ones (see #109794 #200454).
> >
> > There is already infrastructure for binary-arch and binary-indep available,
> > as well as two set of build-deps, the normal ones and the indep ones.
>
> Well that infrastructure is not done by dpkg-genchanges and dpkg-buildpackage
> (unless I missed to see how) but it was tried to be done as good as possible
> by our rules targets. Is there a way to build just the binary-indep targets
> and deb packages on certain architectures so that the build process can exit
> gracefully ? What we need is from a single source package to produce native
> and native + indep packages depending on the architecture that source package
> being built.
autobuilders build with dpkg-buildpackage -B, and build only binary-dep. Not
sure if the contrary is possible though. binary-indep parts are only built by
the original builder and not touched at all by the autobuilders, and as thus
the bytecode-only part need not be built on any random arch.
See the spamoracle package on how this can be done, and it has to my knowledge
never caused any problem with the m68k buildd.
> > > > If this package is not supposed to be built on m68k, please say so in
> > > > your control file and/or stop the build right at the beginning.
> >
> > Christian, this is a fuckup of the buildd's i think, which try to build
> > stuff even if not marked for them. Not sure i haven't locked at this
> > recently.
>
> If that is the case it should be tracked down.
Or it can just be ignored.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: