Re: Bug#320145: libswt-gtk3-jni: package does not exist for ppc
2005/8/23, Ryan Murray <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 04:19:38PM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote:
> > libswt-gtk3-jni does not exist for PowerPC. I don't know why. Perhpas you know?
> 2005 Mar 19 00:03:46: --take(unstable): swt-gtk_3.0-6 changed from Needs-Build to Building by buildd_powerpc as buildd_powerpc-voltaire
> 2005 Mar 19 07:25:38: --merge-quinn(unstable): swt-gtk_3.0+3.1M4-1 changed from Building to Needs-Build by katie as katie
> 2005 Mar 19 07:54:07: --take(unstable): swt-gtk_3.0+3.1M4-1 changed from Needs-Build to Building by buildd_powerpc as buildd_powerpc-voltaire
> 2005 Mar 20 15:04:34: --uploaded(unstable): swt-gtk_3.0+3.1M4-1 changed from Building to Uploaded by buildd_powerpc as buildd_powerpc-voltaire
> 2005 Mar 20 16:25:34: --merge-packages(unstable): swt-gtk_3.0+3.1M4-1 changed from Uploaded to Installed by katie as katie
Thanks! That's useful. Are these logs posted on the web?
> swt-gtk_3.0-6 built early on March 19th. But before it had a chance
> to get uploaded, 3.0+3.1M4-1 existed. the 3.0-6 build would have been
> rejected for lack-of-source, and was thrown away. The build daemons
> do not attempt to build uncompiled things for stable or testing, so
> it's not being built now.
I'll remember to leave more time for the buildd between uploads next
time. Thanks for the explanation.
> > In any case, could it be built from swt-gtk 3.0-6 (in Sarge and
> > testing) and uploaded?
> It's rather late to be doing this now. Talk to the stable release manager,
> and if he'll accept the package, I can look into have it built. We don't
> normally introduce never-built-before packages in point releases, so I
> wouldn't count on it. As for testing, getting 3.0+3.1M4-4 in would be the
> best bet there...
swt-gtk 3.0+3.1M4-4 will provide libswt-gtk-3.1-jni but it doesn't
provide libswt-gtk3-jni, which is the package this bug is requesting
Dear release managers,
If libswt-gtk3-jni were built for powerpc, could it be uploaded to a
stable point release? There's a bit of a gap in stable, since the
package exists for most other architectures: amd64 arm hppa i386 ia64
m68k s390 sparc.
I don't believe any package depends on it though (which makes me
wonder a bit why this bug requested the package in the first place),
so if this is a *bad idea* I'll tag the bug wontfix and close it.