D-I - Minor buildd problems
There are several packages relevant for the installer that have what looks like minor problems keeping them from being built on some arches. - gtk+2.0-directfb (2.0.9.2-12) Needs to be retried on mipsel; problem should be fixed with new gcc. - parted (1.6.25.1-1) Needs to be retried on mips/mipsel; problem should be fixed with new gcc. - anna (1.19) Will ask Wouter to look into m68k failure (segfault). This seems recurring: a build on a different machine will probably succeed. - cdebconf (0.91) Failed on alpha and ia64 with strange build dep error; a simple retry may fix this. - partman-auto (46) Strange fakeroot failure; a simple retry may fix this. It would be nice to have these issues fixed in order to start preparation for D-I beta 2. TIA, Frans Pop pgpPXKrX9u7sP.pgp Description: PGP signature
should packages begin using /srv ?
Hi, policy currently mandates FHS 2.1, while FHS 2.3 is the current upstream version. /srv is not mentioned in FHS 2.1 - but /srv is created by base-files or debootstrap even in sarge (cannot find it in the code at a quick glance.. the base-files/FAQ says its debotstrap, but whatever.. In #340608 Steve Langasek writes FHS 2.3 for etch is still an open question, as there are some transition issues. But as far as I'm concerned, /srv is fine for packages to begin using. In http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#SRVDATAFORSERVICESPROVIDEDBYSYSTEM /srv is described as /srv contains site-specific data which is served by this system. Rationale: This main purpose of specifying this is so that users may find the location of the data files for particular service, and so that services which require a single tree for readonly data, writable data and scripts (such as cgi scripts) can be reasonably placed. [...] So my question is simply: should packages begin using /srv now ? What is the release teams opinion and decission on this ? (Steve commented on IRC that it would be good to have this decission made by the team and in an archived media.) regards, Holger pgpzdubQV9apb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: buildd maintainers stuck?
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How about making porters responsible for running the buildds for their arch? I consider anyone who runs a buildd for an arch a porter already so that is already there. If they are unwilling to cooperate with the rest of the porters, and they aren't participating, then I don't think they are a porter. Calling a dog's tail a leg doesn't make it one. Thomas The might just be bad porters. Bad dog, BAD. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: D-I - Minor buildd problems
On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 01:17:42PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: There are several packages relevant for the installer that have what looks like minor problems keeping them from being built on some arches. - gtk+2.0-directfb (2.0.9.2-12) Needs to be retried on mipsel; problem should be fixed with new gcc. - parted (1.6.25.1-1) Needs to be retried on mips/mipsel; problem should be fixed with new gcc. Someone said these were being held in reserve for tests on upcoming autobuilders; I've asked Ryan to confirm. - cdebconf (0.91) Failed on alpha and ia64 with strange build dep error; a simple retry may fix this. No, this is someone trying to be clever and hard-coding a dependency on libc6 into libgtk+2.0-directfb0. The correct dependency on alpha and ia64 is libc6.1. (I have no idea what the alternative on | libc is supposed to do; *nothing* provides libc on alpha, and even if it did, it'd be bloody worthless as a dependency. We have sonames in our lib package names for a reason!) - partman-auto (46) Strange fakeroot failure; a simple retry may fix this. Yes, built successfully. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: D-I - Minor buildd problems
On Friday 09 December 2005 17:03, Steve Langasek wrote: - cdebconf (0.91) Failed on alpha and ia64 with strange build dep error; a simple retry may fix this. No, this is someone trying to be clever and hard-coding a dependency on libc6 into libgtk+2.0-directfb0. The correct dependency on alpha and ia64 is libc6.1. (I have no idea what the alternative on | libc is supposed to do; *nothing* provides libc on alpha, and even if it did, it'd be bloody worthless as a dependency. We have sonames in our lib package names for a reason!) Thanks for analysis. Bug filed. pgpLSGjgtz5zK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: buildd maintainers stuck?
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The might just be bad porters. Bad dog, BAD. Then presumably the rest of the porters can replace them? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: D-I - Minor buildd problems
On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 01:17:42PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: There are several packages relevant for the installer that have what looks like minor problems keeping them from being built on some arches. - anna (1.19) Will ask Wouter to look into m68k failure (segfault). This seems recurring: a build on a different machine will probably succeed. That's weird, it built fine for me though (uploaded 1.20). I've been watching this thing come and go, but I haven't been able to pin it down. Feel free to copy me on stuff like this too. Wouter and I are in different time zones. (Actually the m68k-build folks cover a pretty wide range of time zones. :-) Thanks, Stephen -- Stephen R. Marenka If life's not fun, you're not doing it right! [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
