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

Re: Classification of some arm builds that are 'Building'

On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 06:35:40AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> I haven't seen your bug report in detail (having delivery issues with
> @debian.org mail, some has been days late), but octave2.0 is unlikely to
> change:

> -- code development was frozen / stopped years ago, all development went
>    into octave2.1
> -- octave2.0 is there for "legacy" code
> -- it doesn't build on all arches, and never has as it requires a pre-3.0.0
>    gcc/g++ version, and those were problematic on hppa and ia64
> -- if it is fscked on arm, no one will fix it unless the arm people do

> So I would much prefer to just forget about it. If it exists in the others
> arches, can we override build attempts on arm and get on with life?
> Realistically, few to no people would use octave on arm anyway, and for the
> few brave ones, we have a working octave2.1.

> I'll intend tag this is upstream+wontfix and would like to lower severity as
> well. It is a bug, but far from RC in my book.

It is a serious bug in version 2.0.17-9 of octave2.0 that it fails to
build on arm where it built successfully before.  However, the other
architectures all have 2.0.17-8 in testing, where arm has 2.0.17-7
(presumably getting in at some point in the past when arm was being
ignored), so ignoring the build failure altogether is not sufficient to
ensure a releasable octave2.0 package in sarge.

Either someone needs to fix octave2.0's build on arm, or the out-of-date
binaries need to be removed from both testing and unstable before

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: