Re: Wrong info on protobuf package
On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 12:47:28PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> What I find odd is, if the arch:all packages were maintainer-uploaded, why did
> the all buildd try to build them?
>
> Was it a source-only upload, the builder tried to build the arch:all packages
> and failed, then the maintainer did a all-only upload?
Yes, that's what it seems it happened.
> If that's the case, that
> would explain why there is a failed build log, yet it is listed as Installed.
> Then the bug is in the package for failing to build with dpkg-buildpackage -A.
Sure, the package has a bug, but having a green "Installed" and a link
to a failed log is misleading, so I prefer not to think in terms
of "single bug".
So I fully agree with your c) point:
> c) showing "Installed" without a hyperlink, and showing the failed log in "old"
The other things are maybe not so easy. There are more than a hundred bugs like #806096,
this is the complete list:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=binary-indep;users=sanvila@debian.org
Most of them should be fixed before we can even think about forbidding
binary uploads.
But there is also a bug in dak which I consider even more important,
as it makes failed source-only uploads like the one that failed here
to be a pain to fix, as the upload fixing it goes to the NEW queue as
if it were a new paclage. This is both a pain for the uploader and
and a pain for the ftpmasters, who have to approve the package again.
If any of you reading this have some free time and motivation to work
on it:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=760206
Thanks a lot.
Reply to: