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

Re: Bug#215999: mldonkey source code "not found" on website



On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 09:43:06PM +0100, Pigeon wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 08:24:09PM +0200, Sylvain LE GALL wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 09:25:38PM +0100, Pigeon wrote:
> > > Package: mldonkey
> > > Version: 2.5.3-1
> > > 
> > >   The Debian website package pages for mldonkey
> > >   
> > >     http://packages.debian.org/unstable/net/mldonkey-gui.html
> > >     http://packages.debian.org/unstable/net/mldonkey-server.html
> > > 
> > >   show "Source code: not found".
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > I really don't know how to solve this bug ;->
> > 
> > I think it is only a question of update of the page.
> 
> Sure... I figured that the recipient of the bug report would be better
> placed than me to do this :-)
> 
> I'm CCing this to debian-user in case anyone there can suggest a more
> useful way to report this bug.

I think this bug is cosmetic. Look at this:

  [cjwatson@auric ~]$ madison -S mldonkey
  mldonkey-gui |    2.5.1-8 |      unstable | m68k, s390
  mldonkey-gui |    2.5.3-1 |      unstable | arm, i386
  mldonkey-gui |    2.5.3-2 |      unstable | alpha, hppa, ia64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, sparc
  mldonkey-server |    2.5.1-8 |      unstable | m68k, s390
  mldonkey-server |    2.5.3-1 |      unstable | arm, i386
  mldonkey-server |    2.5.3-2 |      unstable | alpha, hppa, ia64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, sparc
    mldonkey |    2.5.3-2 |      unstable | source

In other words, the maintainer uploaded on something other than i386
and, in this case, the i386 build daemon failed to build it (see
http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?pkg=mldonkey), which means that i386
is older than source, which confuses packages.debian.org. The build
failure may be a bug in mldonkey, but the packages.debian.org output is
not.

The best thing to do with this bug would be to reassign it to
www.debian.org. I know that Frank Lichtenheld is working on rewriting
that part of the web site anyway; he's probably fixed this in the
process, but it wouldn't hurt to check.

Cheers,

-- 
Colin Watson                                  [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]



Reply to: