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

Re: (fwd) Bug#108538: par: par segmentation fault on sparc



On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 03:31:25PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 10:08:25PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 10:55:19AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > looks like par needs to be rebuilt for sparc.
> > >
> > > i don't have a debian sparc box or any idea of what library versions
> > > are available for it.
> >
> > Login to vore.debian.org. Let me know if you need anything installed.
> 
> ok, i've done that. the package builds and even seems to run without
> error.
> 
> now what? what's the procedure for maintaining different builds of the
> same package for different architectures? i thought that was something
> the porters were supposed to do, and my responsibility was to make sure
> the package actually built on supported architectures.

If you build the package with "dpkg-buildpackage -us -us -B", you can
then bring the .changes to your system, sign it, and upload it. If the
package is not up-to-date, as you say, then just upload that version. If
it is up-to-date, then do a binary-only upload.

> or...how can i trigger the autobuilders to do a rebuild against the
> latest library versions for unstable.

Upload a new version.

> according to my changelog, par 1.51-1 was uploaded on Sat, 31 Mar 2001
> 12:35:39 +1000 - so if the autobuilder was running a recent libc6 it
> should have rebuilt automatically sometime after that. that hasn't
> happened so it seems that the autobuilder is not up to date.

The autobuilder always runs the most recent packages. If it did not
build, it is because there is an error in the package build.

Ben

-- 
 .----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=-----.
/  Ben Collins  --  ...on that fantastic voyage...  --  Debian GNU/Linux   \
`  bcollins@debian.org  --  bcollins@openldap.org  --  bcollins@linux.com  '
 `---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'



Reply to: