Bug#396528: hunspell: FTBFS on arm: 3 tests failed
Package: hunspell Version: 1.1.4-3 Severity: serious Strange that this has never been reported, but it seems hunspell never was built successfully on arm. I checked the last three build logs from http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?arch=arm&pkg=hunspell, and the failure always seems to be the same, namely three tests failing. This blocks at least one package which build-depends on libhunspell-dev, #393273. Regards, Frank -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.1 APT prefers unstable APT policy: (99, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.17-2-686 Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (charmap=ISO-8859-15) -- Dr. Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
Bug#396528: hunspell: FTBFS on arm: 3 tests failed
severity 396528 important thanks Frank Küster wrote: > Strange that this has never been reported, but it seems hunspell never > was built successfully on arm. I checked the last three build logs from > http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?arch=arm&pkg=hunspell, and the > failure always seems to be the same, namely three tests failing. And because this never built it is not RC. > This blocks at least one package which build-depends on libhunspell-dev, > #393273. filed by me. Gr??e/Regards, Ren? -- .''`. Ren? Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#396528: hunspell: FTBFS on arm: 3 tests failed
Rene Engelhard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > severity 396528 important > thanks > > Frank Küster wrote: >> Strange that this has never been reported, but it seems hunspell never >> was built successfully on arm. I checked the last three build logs from >> http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?arch=arm&pkg=hunspell, and the >> failure always seems to be the same, namely three tests failing. > > And because this never built it is not RC. Meanwhile I've read that, too, in the bug log. Where ist that written in policy, b.d.o, or anywhere else? I always assumed that unless a package is already marked as "not for us" for the autobuilders of an arch, any FTBFS is serious. Whether it's also RC is a, err, different question... ;-( Regards, Frank -- Dr. Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
