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

Re: Bug#264403: rpvm: FTBFS m68k: /usr/lib/pvm3/conf/LINUXR68R.def: No such file or directory

On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 04:41:13PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> [Cc-ing debian-release to reach an RM; please keep the discussion on the bug
>  as I'm not subscribed to -release.]

> On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 09:21:34AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> >> But when there is no shared one, the static one is used, which simply does
> >> not work; this is not pvm's fault. The rpvm configure script assumes that if
> > Sure is pvm's fault: You are violating Policy by not providing a shared lib.

> *sigh* This is obviously hard. Let me summarize:

> - rpvm should NOT check for a static library if it cannot use a static
>   library. This is a bug in rpvm upstream.
> - pvm should build a shared library for libgpvm3 as of Debian policy (but see
>   below).

> > Please provide a shared library.

> Would an RM please step in here and assist? To summarize: rpvm refuses to
> work with static PVM libraries on some (non-i386) platforms. (Due to an rpvm
> bug, it does not detect this at configure time; this works by accident on
> i386 and some other platforms but fails on others.) PVM upstream only
> provides static libraries; Debian PVM has provided a shared libpvm3 for ages
> but no shared libgpvm3. I am rather reluctant to hacking a shared libgpvm3
> into a build system I am not intimately familiar with before sarge (I have
> not maintained pvm all that long), even though lack of shared libraries is a
> policy violation (or at least so it seems), as this has obviously been OK
> with the world for ~3-4 years, and I don't want to possibly break pvm for
> sarge.

I don't believe this is a question for the release team to decide.  The
release managers have the authority to decide certain policy violations
will not be RC, but this is a question of whether a particular bug is a
policy violation at all.  Please refer this to debian-devel if you need
to establish a consensus for this issue.

For my part, I don't see how this could be a serious bug in pvm.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: