Re: Some of your Debian packages might need attention -- Felix
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 11:43:41AM +1000, skaller wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 16:16 -0600, DDPOMail robot wrote:
>> The following possible problem(s) were detected in the package(s)
>> you maintain in Debian:
>> === felix: (you co-maintain this package)
>> = This package has not been able to migrate from unstable
>> to testing for more than 305 days.
> A bit confused here: how can Felix 1.1.3 have been in
> testing for 305 days .. ? Since it was only just uploaded .. :)
No, read the sentence again: It has been 305 days since felix was
updated in testing. Meaning, the version of felix in testing is 305
days old, and newer versions are in unstable.
> #430234 -- long double upgrade thing. Ouch. Does the status
> apply to the source package or just binaries for a particular
> platform?
Bugs are per binary (as opposed to source) package, but do not
distinguish between platform. A bug is always counted "for all
platforms" as far as testing transition is concerned. (testing
transition happens only synchronised on all platforms anyway)
> #339164 -- yes, this is a real bug for 1.1.1, but the install
> model changed with 1.1.3, so Felix no longer ships anything
> directly in /usr/include or /usr/lib.
> This bug has a 2005 date on it .. why is it still there?
Because nobody closed it. Bugs don't get closed automatically simply
because they are old.
> #424252 -- felix: FTBFS if built twice in a row
> Looks like a packaging issue..
Yes, but... The origin of the problem seems to be that your upstream
tarball contains binaries, that get recompiled during the build?
That's weird, but I don't know felix so maybe you have a good reason
for that.
--
Lionel
Reply to: