[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 12:45:31PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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

Can't disagree, but frankly have zero hope or time in fixing it.

> 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 Either someone needs to fix octave2.0's build on arm, or the out-of-date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
> release.

I haven't had much luck with bug requests for ftp.debian.org -- what could I
do to have the octave2.0 binaries for the arm architecture removed from
testing and unstable?

I inted to have octave2.0 removed in its entirely after sarge (this being
the legacy version of Octave, and all new stuff is in octave2.1 anyway,
which will "soon" (as in few months to years) be octave2.0), but I wouldn't
mind getting the larger part of it into sarge.  If I can't purge arm-only, I
may have to be all of it, as regrettable as that may be.


Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
                                                -- Groucho Marx

Reply to: