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

Re: Fixing buildd issues on ppc64el



Hi,

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 04:26:55PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 03:55:49PM +0200, Frédéric Bonnard wrote:
> > I'd like to help fixing issues found during buildd of packages on ppc64el :
> > https://buildd.debian.org/status/architecture.php?a=ppc64el&suite=sid
> 
> Thanks, help is welcomed. You might have seen there are two categories,
> Build-Attempted and Failed. The first one is where packages which fails
> to build land. It can be moved to Failed by a DD having access to
> wanna-build with a comment.

Now that we have debian-installer working, I have installed a VM with
it and tried to determine which packages are still missing to setup a
VM with the standard DSA packages using the Debian archive. I therefore
tried to install the various meta-packages in order to find which
packages are missing in the Debian archive. Here is the list below,
based on the source package name, with an explanation why they are not
available:

bacula         #758125  ftbfs (libtool)
bzr            #760054  ftbfs (non ppc64el specific) #760054
deborphan      #735010  ftbfs (libtool)
emacs23        #749530  build-dep on libotf, which ftbfs (libtool)
git            #727295  build-dep indirectly on exiv2, which ftbfs (libtool)
grub2                   need a cross-compiler or patches
klibc          #749060  some binaries segfault
mutt           #752831  build-dep on gpgme1.0 which ftbfs (libtool)
powerpc-utils  #738140  arch not in list
subversion     #727295  build-dep indirectly on exiv2, which ftbfs (libtool)
tcsh                    testsuite failure
ulogd2         #734029  build-dep on libnetfilter-acct, which ftbfs (libtool)

It would be a good idea to work on these packages in priority.

Thanks,
Aurelien

[1] http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/ppc64el/daily/netboot/

-- 
Aurelien Jarno                          GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurelien@aurel32.net                 http://www.aurel32.net


Reply to: