2005/8/23, Ryan Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 04:19:38PM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote: > > libswt-gtk3-jni does not exist for PowerPC. I don't know why. Perhpas you > > know? > > 2005 Mar 19 00:03:46: --take(unstable): swt-gtk_3.0-6 changed from > Needs-Build to Building by buildd_powerpc as buildd_powerpc-voltaire > 2005 Mar 19 07:25:38: --merge-quinn(unstable): swt-gtk_3.0+3.1M4-1 changed > from Building to Needs-Build by katie as katie > 2005 Mar 19 07:54:07: --take(unstable): swt-gtk_3.0+3.1M4-1 changed from > Needs-Build to Building by buildd_powerpc as buildd_powerpc-voltaire > 2005 Mar 20 15:04:34: --uploaded(unstable): swt-gtk_3.0+3.1M4-1 changed from > Building to Uploaded by buildd_powerpc as buildd_powerpc-voltaire > 2005 Mar 20 16:25:34: --merge-packages(unstable): swt-gtk_3.0+3.1M4-1 changed > from Uploaded to Installed by katie as katie
Thanks! That's useful. Are these logs posted on the web? > swt-gtk_3.0-6 built early on March 19th. But before it had a chance > to get uploaded, 3.0+3.1M4-1 existed. the 3.0-6 build would have been > rejected for lack-of-source, and was thrown away. The build daemons > do not attempt to build uncompiled things for stable or testing, so > it's not being built now. I'll remember to leave more time for the buildd between uploads next time. Thanks for the explanation. > > In any case, could it be built from swt-gtk 3.0-6 (in Sarge and > > testing) and uploaded? > > It's rather late to be doing this now. Talk to the stable release manager, > and if he'll accept the package, I can look into have it built. We don't > normally introduce never-built-before packages in point releases, so I > wouldn't count on it. As for testing, getting 3.0+3.1M4-4 in would be the > best bet there... swt-gtk 3.0+3.1M4-4 will provide libswt-gtk-3.1-jni but it doesn't provide libswt-gtk3-jni, which is the package this bug is requesting Dear release managers, If libswt-gtk3-jni were built for powerpc, could it be uploaded to a stable point release? There's a bit of a gap in stable, since the package exists for most other architectures: amd64 arm hppa i386 ia64 m68k s390 sparc. I don't believe any package depends on it though (which makes me wonder a bit why this bug requested the package in the first place), so if this is a *bad idea* I'll tag the bug wontfix and close it. Cheers, Shaun
