On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 14:54 -0400, Stephen Powell wrote: > On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 13:37:45 -0400 (EDT), Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 11:10 -0400, Stephen Powell wrote: > >> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 11:02:21 -0400 (EDT), Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > >>> non-free is no longer autobuilt. > >> > >> I hadn't heard that, but from searching the archives it appears that > >> this has been the case at least as far back as 2002; so I don't think > >> that's the problem. > > > > No. There was non-free autobuilding on unofficial hosts until some time > > last year. Since then, there has been some work on integrating it in to > > the official buildd architecture; that functionality is currently > > disabled due to it trying to build packages that weren't whitelisted. [...] > As my experiments > have shown, the current Squeeze source package builds and installs just fine > on Squeeze. It just has to be built.
Building it in squeeze wouldn't really help, even if it was currently possible; the packages would end up depending on libicu42 which would make them installable right now but break as soon as we transition the new icu. > It seems to me that something needs > to be done to get these packages to autobuild again somehow. What needs to > be done to make that happen? Whitelist the package? (whatever that means) Some non-free packages we can auto-build on Debian hardware; in some cases, the licence means we can't. The default assumption is (and has to be) that we can't. > Whitelist the package plus re-enabling the disabled functionality (with > checks for whitelisted packages)? Why is this the wrong approach? It's not. But it needs someone to work on fixing the non-free autobuilding setup to ensure that aren't any windows where it can build packages which haven't been whitelisted. > From what you've told me, that seems to be the way to go. Am I missing > something? > > As for Sid, if there is no dependency on libicu at all, then they do not > depend on libicu for any architecture, right? And the fact that libicu > does not exist in Sid is no problem. Again, the packages just have to > be built. It seems to me that the solution is to find some way to get > the packages to autobuild again, as was done in the past. It seems to me > that that will solve all the problems. Yep, that would solve all the problems. It's just not as small a "just" as you appear to be suggesting. :-) Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
