Re: Classification of some arm builds that are 'Building'
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 02:55:08PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> 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 Either someone needs to fix octave2.0's build on arm, or the out-of-date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
Grrr: will "soon" be octave 3.0, is of course what I meant.
D.
> 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.
>
> Dirk
>
>
> --
> Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
> -- Groucho Marx
>
--
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
-- Groucho Marx
Reply to: