On Monday 14 March 2005 21:35, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Looking just at the ones I reported: > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?which=submitter&data=brederlo% >40informatik.uni-tuebingen.de&archive=no > > #249397: FTBFS: amd64 missing in Architecture list > Package: mga-vid; Severity: important; Reported by: Goswin Brederlow > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tags: patch; 301 days old.
mga-vid: Kernel driver for the back-end scaler on Matrox cards + Module aliases and test program The package was NMUd a year ago: there are 4 bugs > 1 year fixed-in-NMU. The patch would be trivially applied in a porter-NMU. > # #249440: inetutils: Wrong Priorities and Sections in debain/control break > debian-amd64 Package: inetutils; Severity: important; Reported by: Goswin > Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; merged with #205487, > #266666, #290700; 301 days old. This is a problem between more arches than amd64 and the rest. Read the buglog for 205487, which is merged to that bug and almost a year older. Also the package is currently 'optional' in the control file and checking the source: debian/control.in: Priority: @inetutils:Priority@ There already seems to be infrastructure for resolving this. Maybe you want to take another look at this issue? > # #251765: FTBFS: missing amd64 support > Package: scm; Severity: important; Reported by: Goswin von Brederlow > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tags: patch; 288 days old. Maintainer acknowledged the problem and promised to put the patch into the next upload. There was never a next upload. Current version in unstable is a NMU of the then-current version, there is no version in testing. > # #252760: FTBFS: architecture missing > Package: mkrboot; Severity: important; Reported by: Goswin von Brederlow > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 282 days old. > > # #252771: FTBFS: wrong architecture > Package: bsign; Severity: important; Reported by: Goswin von Brederlow > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 282 days old. > > # #254089: FTBFS: test for res_mkquery is broken > Package: mtr; Severity: important; Reported by: Goswin von Brederlow > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tags: patch; 274 days old. > > # #255725: FTBFS: amd64 needs Build-Depends svgalig1-dev too > Package: cthugha; Severity: important; Reported by: Goswin von Brederlow > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 265 days old. > > .... > > That suggests that FTBFS bugs for SCC archs will be ignored just as > long, 1/2 - 3/4 of the planed release cycle. Now imagine a bug in fsck > that destroys data being left open for so long. The first three bugs are maintnance-gone-cold, fix-in-the-works but not yet verified and maintnance-gone-cold. Two out of three are RC problems even without amd64, the third is being worked on and probably already solved. I don't want to research the other bugs but I don't believe the situation to be significantly different. Regards, David -- - hallo... wie gehts heute? - *hust* gut *rotz* *keuch* - gott sei dank kommunizieren wir über ein septisches medium ;) -- Matthias Leeb, Uni f. angewandte Kunst, 2005-02-15
