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

Re: T&S 2 - Die^H^H^HRelease Harder



Hi Bill,

On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 05:00:17PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 12:19:27PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > So first, please continue to work on the RC bugs you already have, and
> > select at least two RC bugs from our RC bug list and add them to your
> > work list.

> Of the previous buglist, only one was not fixed:
> #350407: lessdisks-terminal: modifies /etc/kernel-img.conf in postinst

> but lessdisks has other problems and the maintainer know how to fix this
> one.

Fair enough.

> I have fixed two RC bugs in the gbib package
> #334221: gbib: FTBFS on 64 bit arches: Old gettext macro.
> #334407: gbib segfaults after update

> I have worked on having a fixed gcc-2.95 version, see bug
> #350688: gcc-2.95: FTBFS with new make
> #373098: gcc-2.95: f77 FTBFS on alpha (work-around provided)

> I have also provided a fix for 
> #349807 FTBFS: cp: cannot stat `./debian/tmp/usr/lib/libtowitoko.so\': No such file or directory

> I have also reviewed old RC bugs to see whether they still applied to
> etch/sid packages. I have closed half a dozen RC bugs this way.

Good, thanks. :)

> > Bill Allombert
> > http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?pkg=kaffe&arch=ia64&ver=2%3A1.1.7-2&stamp=1146095882&file=log

> This bug just wait for a retry of kaffe on ia64.
> Background: There were two issues:

> 1) kaffe used  /usr/bin/ecj-bootstrap which was an alternative. 
> kaffe would FTBFS only if /usr/bin/ecj-bootstrap pointed to 
> ecj-bootstrap-gcj. 

> 2) ecj-bootstrap-gcj was misbuilt by gcj on ia64 and therefore could
> not build kaffe.

> The Debian JAVA team has addressed the two issues
> (/usr/bin/ecj-bootstrap is no more an alternative, but a script
> that call ecj-bootstrap-gcj if available.).A fixed gcj-4.1 has been
> uploaded, a fixed ecj-bootstrap has been uploaded, ecj-bootstrap 
> has been binNMUed on ia64 to take advantage of the gcj-4.1 fix and
> now it only remain for kaffe to be rebuild with ecj-bootstrap-gcj on
> ia64.

Ok, I've confirmed that the last build of kaffe was done with the old
ecj-bootstrap-gcj, and given kaffe back on ia64.  Let's see how it goes!

> > Your last task for the next two weeks is now to find at least one set of
> > packages, e.g. on http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/, and send us an working
> > hint. Please don't be disappointed if your hint doesn't work on first try -
> > it's not that easy, but as you're now a bit more experienced, you should
> > forward to that level.

> I provided two hints and the first worked:

> The second suffered from a wrong-version error that I will fix.

So with the fixed version, the new error is:

leading:
gtk-sharp2,gecko-sharp2,gnome-keyring-sharp,gtksourceview-sharp2,monodevelop
start: 155+429: i-15:a-13:a-52:h-34:i-12:m-8:m-8:p-13:a-133:m-219:s-32:s-45
orig: 155+429: i-15:a-13:a-52:h-34:i-12:m-8:m-8:p-13:a-133:m-219:s-32:s-45
easy: 162+428: i-21:a-13:a-52:h-34:i-12:m-8:m-8:p-14:a-132:m-219:s-32:s-45
    * i386: monodevelop, monodevelop-boo, monodevelop-java, monodevelop-nunit, monodevelop-query, monodevelop-versioncontrol
    * powerpc: muine

This is caused by:

$ grep-excuses monodevelop
monodevelop (0.9-1 to 0.10-1)
    Maintainer: Mirco Bauer
    43 days old (needed 5 days)
    monodevelop/i386 unsatisfiable Depends: libmono-cecil0.3-cil (>= 0.3)
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Valid candidate
    Depends: monodevelop gtk-sharp2

The current version of cecil seems to be libmono-cecil0.4-cil.

Since the monodevelop packages are arch: all, I guess this needs a sourceful
upload.  Could you please check whether this is fixed by a simple rebuild,
and file a bug against monodevelop?

Thanks,
-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: