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

Re: Request unblock sdl-stretch/0.3.1-3

2012/7/28, Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org>:
> On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 11:58:28AM +0100, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
> wrote:
>> I would like to ask an unblock to sdl-stretch/0.3.1-3.
>> There's an unblock already for sdl-stretch/0.3.1-2 because it was in
>> unstable before the freeze, but -2 failed to build in kfreebsd-i386
>> and thus it never migrated to testing:
> Yep, hence the unblock for -2 does not matter. There are changes in
> debian/rules
> that are not mentioned in the changelog (like the DEB_CFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND
> and
> DEB_LDFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND bits). Please revert those. You also introduced a
> whitespace issue in debian/rules.

These changes that you mention, were introduced the 26th of April for
0.3.1-2, well before the release, without any bug report being
submitted since then.  This is what it's already authorised to migrate
in the unblock.

The only changes introduced are the ones about architecture, 2 lines,
and the changelog.  In the case that I didn't attach the diff
recently, I do it now, as generated by:

  debdiff ../*/sdl-stretch_0.3.1-[23]*.dsc > /tmp/sdl-stretch_-2_to_-3.diff

If you don't feel comfortable about authorising -2 either, that's
another question.  It's been working apparently fine for 3+ months
now, without any bug report (then again it's not much used, so if
people find bugs maybe they're just ignoring it).

I've been working and spending time with this package with the hope
that the best possible version goes into unstable.  It was only built
in i386 arches, which are mostly obsolete in mainstream hardware,
since nobody had bothered to update this package in the past few
Debian releases since 2005 when amd64 was not even an accepted

I think that reversing these changes is not a good idea, for reasons
explained in the changelog and these bugs reports, I won't repeat
myself.  So if you prefer to just remove the unblock, or the package
altogether for the next stable, I think that I prefer that solution to
producing a package that will get a FTBFS shortly after stable is

Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com>
diff -Nru sdl-stretch-0.3.1/debian/changelog sdl-stretch-0.3.1/debian/changelog
--- sdl-stretch-0.3.1/debian/changelog	2012-04-26 15:51:26.000000000 +0100
+++ sdl-stretch-0.3.1/debian/changelog	2012-07-04 20:25:34.000000000 +0100
@@ -1,3 +1,22 @@
+sdl-stretch (0.3.1-3) unstable; urgency=low
+  * Change "Architecture: any-amd64 any-i386" for both binary packages.
+    This package is a bit special because it contains optimised routines in
+    assembler for some architectures, so even if it can be built successfully in
+    others, it doesn't really make sense to provide the package.  According to
+    upstream, current models of both i386 and amd64 are supported, and while
+    it's desired to have support in other platforms (e.g. ARM), it's not there
+    yet.
+    Before 0.3.1-1, debian/control was set only to build on i386; and in 0.3.1-1
+    it was set to "any", but the file
+    https://buildd.debian.org/quinn-diff/sid/Packages-arch-specific restricted
+    the architectures effectively to "i386 kfreebsd-i386 hurd-i386" (see
+    #680275).
+ -- Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com>  Wed, 04 Jul 2012 20:12:03 +0100
 sdl-stretch (0.3.1-2) unstable; urgency=low
   * Bump Standards-Version to 3.9.3 (no changes needed)
diff -Nru sdl-stretch-0.3.1/debian/control sdl-stretch-0.3.1/debian/control
--- sdl-stretch-0.3.1/debian/control	2012-04-26 15:51:35.000000000 +0100
+++ sdl-stretch-0.3.1/debian/control	2012-07-04 20:07:19.000000000 +0100
@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@
 Homepage: http://sdl-stretch.sourceforge.net
 Package: libsdl-stretch-0-3
-Architecture: any
+Architecture: any-amd64 any-i386
 Multi-Arch: same
 Pre-Depends: ${misc:Pre-Depends}
 Depends: ${shlibs:Depends},
@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@
 Package: libsdl-stretch-dev
 Section: libdevel
-Architecture: any
+Architecture: any-amd64 any-i386
 Depends: ${misc:Depends},
          libsdl-stretch-0-3 (= ${binary:Version}),
          libsdl1.2-dev(>= 1.2.14~)

Reply to: