On 04/11/2015 04:06 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 04/12/2015 12:52 AM, peter green wrote: >>> >>> This version of openjdk-7-doc doesn't contain any files other than the >>> copyright file and the changelog. The version in testing (7u75-2.5.4-2) is >>> ok. >> >> The underlying bug has been known for over 2 years, basically if the arch all >> packages for openjdk is built on anything other than a handful of specific >> architectures (i386, amd64 or lpia) it will build without docs. You can see a >> report of the issue at >> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=690260 >> >> For 7u75-2.5.4-3 the maintainer upload was "source ppc64el all", this >> strongly >> implies that the arch all packages were built on a ppc64el system hence >> exposing >> the bug. >> >> The issue could be papered over by bumping the version number and building >> and >> uploading on i386 and amd64 but IMO it should really be fixed properly. >> Building >> broken arch all packages depending on the build machine architecture is a >> very >> nasty bug IMO. > > building the docs on zero archs is broken. So the proper fix is to stop > building openjdk on zero archs, or to port hotspot to these architectures. I > can't do the latter, so I'll do the former for stretch. until then you have > to > upload the package built on an hotspot arch. I have adjusted the architecture > list in the packaging VCS.
Since it doesn't appear that we can request a binNMU (according to [0] arch:all packages won't be built), are there any objections to an NMU of the 7u75-2.5.4-3 source package built on amd64? Or would a member of the OpenJDK Team prefer to do a non-NMU upload? Thank you, tony [0] https://wiki.debian.org/binNMU
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
