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

Bug#570462: nmu: second round for the php5 transition



Raphael Geissert <geissert@debian.org> writes:
> On Friday 19 February 2010 13:17:09 Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>> Raphael Geissert <geissert@debian.org> writes:
>> > The php-ps binNMU FTBFS on powerpc due to a libtiff.a error.
>> > Please give it back if it has been fixed already.
>> Already done.
> Looks like it failed again.

No idea why. Tried to reproduce it on purcell, package built just
fine. Have uploaded it now.

>>> There are still some packages that need to be updated because they FTBFS
>>> because of the (not-so-)new API: php-adodb (mine, will try to fix it
>>> during the WE), php-ssh2, php-imlib, zeroc-ice, php-clamav, php-apc.
>> Have bugs been filed about this?
> For php-adodb, php-ssh2, php-imlib, php-clamav, and php-apc: yes.

Great, thanks.

> The zeroc-ice build failure appears to be just that the package was built 
> against php < 5.3 but with a patch that requires 5.3 (no compatibility with 
> old versions was added to the patch). Since we anyway need it to be built 
> against 5.3 please give it back on mipsel and sparc.

Done.

>>> Another upload of php5 will follow as soon as the current version is
>>> built and installed on mips* (so that the binNMUs can be built there), to
>>> fix the RC bug affecting parallel building and possibly some regressions.
>>>
>>> Should that new Debian revision be uploaded with urgency=medium? 
>> low is OK. If it should become a problem, we can always reduce the
>> waiting period later on.
> Ok. I was mostly worried about the time it would take to get it built on all 
> the architectures, but I now see that mips* seem to be doing better.

(a) urgency has no influence at all on the w-b queue order
(b) the mips* backlog is still enormous (400/500 packages)
(c) I have bumped build-priorities for packages related to the current
    transitions and will continue to do so.

Marc
-- 
BOFH #209:
Only people with names beginning with 'A' are getting mail this week
(a la Microsoft)

Attachment: pgpEJ8v_sjOLe.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: