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

Re: Bug#282276: bigloo: FTBFS in sarge: skribe is missing.



On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 10:03:56PM +0100,  wrote:
> tags 282276 + sarge
> thanks

> On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 11:39:59PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > Package: bigloo
> > Version: 2.6d+2.6e-alpha040622-1
> > Severity: serious

> > It currently can't be build in sarge because skribe is not
> > available (anymore?).

> Well, I've noticed that, and I still wonder who asked for its removal.  I do
> not recall any mail about this issue, I can find no ftp.d.o bugreport, and
> there was no open RC bug on this package.

I had scheduled it for removal from testing based on bug #277101; although
this bug was open only briefly, its critical severity warranted ensuring
that the affected version of skribe did not release with sarge -- and also
warranted as quick a fix for testing as possible.  

The fact that a fixed version of skribe has not yet made it back into
testing appears to validate this decision.

> I'm quite annoyed that this now becomes an RC issue for bigloo itself.
> Especially since the bigloo build issue on m68k is preventing a new skribe
> to enter sarge (the mips issue is due to bigloo being yet again autobuilt on
> "reconfig", which is known to fail most of the time, and the mipsel failure
> is an obvious chroot breakage).

> Release people, would it be possible to get an exemption for the support of
> bigloo on m68k for sarge ?  Only skribe build-depends on it currently (and
> it is quite unlikely IMHO that anyone uses bigloo on this arch, but I
> suspect this one argument would be disregarded ;).

You would need to file a bug on ftp.debian.org for this, and get an
ftp-master to give you such an exemption.  But unless the cause of the m68k
build failure is known, I think an exemption is unlikely.  It looks to me
like re-trying the build on a different buildd might help on this arch as
well?

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: