* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 11:09:45PM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote: > > > > A full build log can be found at: > > > > http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?arch=hppa&pkg=fireflier&ver=1.1.6-2+b2 > > > > <sigh> Well, at least automake1.4 is frozen now, so this isn't an RC > > > problem > > > for etch... > > > > Eric, why are you making this change in a package that's been frozen? Why > > > does the changelog claim that there is a "new automake package", when this > > > package is not in the archive and doesn't appear to be in NEW? > > > I hadn't even been aware automake1.4 was frozen or that it was part of > > toolchain-source. I guess I should have been paying better attention. > > Well, this was mentioned in > <http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/09/msg00020.html> -- I > had to double-check that we really did send something out covering this :)
You didn't expect me to read that whole email did you? It was really long :P > > The automake1.10 source package in NEW contains the new automake > > package. This is all part of my diabolical plan lightly documented on > > http://wiki.debian.org/AutomakeTransition, and I did send some mail > > out outlining this to -devel or -release or both months ago. I went > > through and NMUed almost every package that had a build dependency on > > automake about a month ago, so either fireflier's dependency is new > > (for shame) or I somehow missed it in my sweep (shame on me). > > FWIW, I find a total of 5 packages still in unstable with a build-depend on > 'automake' with no alternatives, and 4 packages that build-depend on > automake as an alternative to automake1.4 or automake1.7, which means > they're likely to FTBFS with automake 1.10 after this update. (2 more > build-depend on automake1.9 | automake, so have a fair chance of still > working with automake 1.10.) > > I do remember the discussion of the automake transition, but transitions > like that need to either be finished completely before the freeze starts, or > they need to be done in such a way that they don't cause us more > release-critical bugs when we're trying to push a release out the door. I > recognize the advantage of getting "automake" switched off of 1.4 sooner > rather than later, so I think it'd be ok to push this change through if you > take care of all of the reverse-deps first. I was indeed doing it in a way to not cause more RC bugs. I filed wishlist bugs against all packages that i found to still have these build-dependencies and NMUed almost all of them. There were 3 remaining by my count, but they either had FTBFS bugs so NMUing was difficult or the maintainer told me don't touch, they would take care of it. I need to double check those again to see if they're still having problems. Since fireflier is obviously the 4th package, what is the 5th you noticed? I'm glad you agree this would be a good thing to go into etch. I'll work on sorting out the remaining issues tonight. -- Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
