On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:40:27AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:12:47AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > What we are supposed to do with FTBFS like #483280, #483307, and similar where
> > > ocamlopt binary is just not available on these particular architectures, in
> > > that case IA-64 ? Should we just set the severity to important as Luk Claes
> > > did for #483280 and wait for upstream to provide support for IA-64 or should
> > > we remove ia64 from Architecture: list ?
> > >
> > Ignore or close them, IMO.
>
> Uh, why?
>
> If the package should not be built there it should be declared as such.
> If it can be built in some other way just make the package do that.
Actually I looked only now at the architecture lists of ara and
spamoracle, and in fact ia64 is not listed in any of them.
So, even assuming that the buildd have been invoked on the two packages
for some weird buildd reason, I don't get why binary-arch was invoked.
But even admitting this is due to some buildd weirdness, I'm not getting
why the bugs have been reported. Aren't they bogus?
Luk, why you did raise the severity?
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what?
zack@{upsilon.cc,cs.unibo.it,debian.org} -<%>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
(15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ? /\ All one has to do is hit the
(15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema \/ right keys at the right time
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature