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

Re: Buildd Failures

On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 10:05:41PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> > I found the following probably need to be requeued, since they built
> > fine for me using pbuilder and Nov. 12 sid.
> BTW is there a reason against just uploading the built packages instead
> of requeueing them?

I'm not a dd? I've often thought that it would be terribly convenient to
go ahead and upload them. Half of the bugs seem to be build depends
which I'd be willing to NMU if they sat around too long. Probably the
thing I'd like to do most is annotate the failure list directly. So far 
most of my contributions have been small like this, so I don't have an 
advocate yet, but it'll happen.

> > I was wondering what the uncompiled bit the failed log means.
> > Here's an example.
> > 
> > editors/emacs-dl-canna_1.4-4 by dan-voltaire
> > [extra:uncompiled:PREV-FAILED]
> It means no version of that source package has been successfully built
> yet. I guess out-of-date is obvious. :)


Stephen R. Marenka     If life's not fun, you're not doing it right!

Attachment: pgpShPbF4xrrO.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: