On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 09:06:51PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Sat, 7 May 2005, Matthias Klose wrote: > > > So: How a package which may not be installed reached testing? > > > Does this breakage mean that the current checks made by the testing > > > scripts are not enough? > > I didn't mention testing at all. Nothing is broken in testing. > I am really puzzled now. Why gettext 0.14.1-11 for testing-proposed-updates > FTBFS on mipsel, then? > Are uploads for testing-proposed-updates build on a sarge chroot or not? Yes, they are. > I initially fixed Bug#307749 in unstable, and it FTBFS in a lot of > architectures, so I said: > > [ Hmm, I wish autobuilders ran sarge for packages that are going to be part > > of sarge, at least during the freeze ]. > and Steve replied: > > Well, if you'd care to upload getext 0.14.1-11 to testing-proposed-updates, > > that can be arranged :) > I interpreted that in the sense that uploads for testing-proposed-updates > are already built on a sarge chroot, but now I'm not sure, as you say > "Nothing is broken in testing". > See why I am so confused? Because no one is sure why gettext FTBFS on mipsel/testing. But, it's built now. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature