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

Re: ia64/unstable: FTBFS: needs ocamlopt

On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 03:28:01PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * George Danchev:
> > 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 ?
> Why can't you switch to the bytecode compiler instead?

Actually, the packages are spamoracle and i think ara for the second,
which are pure ocaml packages, and as thus will get in a spamoracle-byte
version, which is arch: all, and will be built once for all arches and a
spamoracle version, which is arch: <native arches>, and contains the
ocamlopt version.

The problem is either :

  - we forgot to remove the arch: ia64 and co after droppign them from
    the native arches, altough i don't think this happened, as we had
    automated the generation of the native arches entry in
    debian/control some years ago.

  - the autobuilder ignore the arch: field, and try to build the
    package just the same, and thus fail, which is what is happening
    here in most probability. If so, the buildds are self to blame for
    trying to build a package they where told not to build.

I remember some time ago, the autobuilders where indeed tryign to build
packages even though they where not marked as being built for that arch,
because some maintainers where restricting the arches abusively. This in
my opinion is an error of the buildd maintainers, and instead of not
trusting the maintainers, and effort to educate them should have been

Well, all this was years ago, not sure how things are now, i have been
quite absent from debian's day to day work since some time.


Sven Luther

Reply to: