Re: Please reconsider closure of # 457151 -- it affects gfortran transition
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> Actually, Colin has had a look at the package, and barring some finer
> points, he said the package seems all right, except that we agreed
> that we needed comments from someone (possibly Camm) before going
> ahead with the upload.
> Should anyone want to consider uploading it to experimental, please do
> note the reason why it was rejected the last time; it was because the
> blas3-paper.ps didn't have the source (it is a generated PostScript
> file). Please REMOVE it before uploading it. Also, the version should
> be 1.2-0.2, I guess.
I'm planning on taking another look at this today and uploading to
Experimental unless I find something to prevent it.
Camm, any comments?
> I was also of this view till some time back, though, of late, I have
> started thinking that it is the package build system's responsibility
> to build with minimal stuff even if `carrots' of extraneous
> Build-Dependencies hang out around them. Of course, I would also be
> very happy with the old system, but anyway... :-)
In my view the best place to define an order for satisfying dependencies is
in the "Depends:" statement. I think it would be best if the dpkg change was
reverted ASAP and then we can have a discussion about the best way to move
forward without having a lot of packages which FTBFS. Especially as this
brokenness is currently impacting about 200 packages (via build dependencies
on things like cernlib and refblas3) for armel.
regards,
Colin
- --
Colin Tuckley | +44(0)1903 236872 | PGP/GnuPG Key Id
Debian Developer | +44(0)7799 143369 | 0x1B3045CE
Try to learn from other people's mistakes, you haven't time to make them all
yourself! - Anon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHixQZj2OPlhswRc4RAvgQAJ4zEPCUVAKWa5W6cRauJ2dcbRZOdQCgiN30
GzA/pZB8P5Tg0jOav50I/Q0=
=YdXE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: