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

Re: m68k: being ignored for testing propagation

Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:

> . . .
> From
> <http://buildd.debian.org/~jeroen/status/architecture.php?a=m68k>, there are
> 125 packages in state Failed, 138 in state Dep-Wait, and 45 that are
> Maybe-Failed; as well as 27 packages in state Not-For-Us.
> . . .
> The release team will continue to monitor the progress of the m68k
> port.  If you have any questions about where to go from here, please
> ask us.

(cc-ing debian-release so that others can assume that the answer I get
here may apply to their packages as well...)

ICU failed to build on m68k because of an internal compiler error.
Last I heard, people were aware of several internal compiler errors
and were working on the problem.  I'm not in a position to help hunt
for internal compiler errors on m68k, so I've just left icu alone in
hopes that it will be requeued at some point once some of the compiler
issues get resolved.

I had attempted a manual build of icu on crest at one point a couple
of months ago (when icu was behind packages that depend upon it in the
buildd queue), but I got the same problem.  I just now logged into
crest and tried compiling the stand-alone source file that used to
create the internal error, and it no longer does.  Would I be helping
or hurting things to do a manual build on crest?  (I'm running one
now, but if someone tells me to just wait for it to be requeued, I'll
interrupt the build and clean up my files.  ICU takes hours to build
on crest.)  Is crest a buildd?  There's nothing in /etc/motd
discouraging people from using crest for manual builds.

Jay Berkenbilt <qjb@debian.org>

Reply to: