Hi. > > > So, you closed the bug report, with a remark (if I understood correctly) > > that I should know better. > > Yes, that's correct. Users of Debian unstable are expected to > understand that packages are often not installable as soon as they hit > the archive, most frequently because of just this: when a source > package builds both arch any and arch all packages which depend on > each other, the arch all package will hit the archive immediately, and > be uninstallable, until the arch any package has been autobuilt. > > This is part of using Debian unstable, and it is simply not a bug. It > happens a half dozen times every week or more. >
Well, I did think of this possibility, that's why I didn't raise the issue before several days. As I imagined that the build would be attempted every day, and although the subversion was modified during these last days, I couldn't understand why the mismatch persisted. [Also, if something is wrong is "unstable", should the users simply forget about it, instead of reporting it?] In this case, looking by myself, I found the following build reports: The database contains build logs for the following versions of lilypond: * 2.2.6-3 (latest build at Apr 28 20:21: maybe-successful) * 2.4.5-2 (latest build at May 3 01:33: maybe-successful) * 2.6.3-1 (latest build at Oct 20 20:23: maybe-failed) * 2.6.3-4 (latest build at Oct 21 06:59: maybe-failed) * 2.6.3-5 (latest build at Oct 23 01:30: maybe-failed) * 2.6.3-8 (latest build at Oct 25 01:17: maybe-failed) * 2.6.3-9 (latest build at Oct 26 04:14: maybe-failed) The log (see previous mail) indicates it is now in "dep-wait". It seems to me that this indicates that the problem is not a matter of build timing between an arch-specific package and an arch-independent package. Am I wrong? > > A link to where the info lies would have been more helpful. > > Because the amd64 buildd maintainers do not participate in the regular > buildd architecture, I cannot read the failed logs. All I can see is > whether they have built it or not. > Well, shouldn't this be considered a bug? Furthermore, there seems to be an inconsistency between the link "status" page you use (http://people.debian.org/~igloo/status.php), which indicates "building" and the "amd64" arch log above. > > So, even if this is not considered a bug of the package you maintain, > > it nonetheless makes it quite useless. > > Life is rough, isn't it? You just have to wait until the binary > package gets built and installed. That's unstable. > Hmm, from what I've read in http://www.debian.org/devel/buildd/wanna-build-states there is a chance that one could wait forever. That's why I'd thought safer to report, and be sure everything is OK. So, the questions are: Why are these build dependencies not satisfied, and when will they be? > > For amd64, there isn't any way I know of because they don't > participate in the regular buildd logging system. > In the meantime, there is: http://amd64.ftbfs.de/build.php [You are welcome.] Gilles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]