* Ian Jackson | 2010-09-15 11:56:49 [+0100]:
>Julien Cristau wrote:
>> I'd say they're serious bugs if packages in the archive suffer from
>> the misbuild, and normal ones if not.
>
>I agree.
Okay. In that case I open this weekend bugs against the packages I
identified [0] with severity serious
* Bernhard R. Link | 2010-09-15 17:05:05 [+0200]:
>Or is there no lintian
>run for buildd (i.e. unsourcefull) uploads yet?
[0] says
"Those automated rejects will only be done on sourceful uploads to
unstable and experimental."
So I would say no, there isn't.
[0] http://ftp-master.debian.org/#r
* Bernhard R. Link , 2010-09-15, 17:05:
As this is not really a new problem and easy to check for, I'm more
surprised that is not yet catched by lintian.
It is: package-contains-info-dir-file. And it's even on ftp-master's
autoreject list.
--
Jakub Wilk
signature.asc
Description: Digital s
* Ian Jackson [100915 15:54]:
> Sebastian Andrzej Siewior writes ("Re: /usr/share/info/dir.gz if install-info
> is installed"):
> > Sounds reasonable. However sometimes package maintainer argueue that the
> > policy says "clean build environment" and havi
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior writes ("Re: /usr/share/info/dir.gz if install-info
is installed"):
> Sounds reasonable. However sometimes package maintainer argueue that the
> policy says "clean build environment" and having package X intalled is
> no longer clean (thus I
* Peter Samuelson | 2010-09-14 16:19:54 [-0500]:
>
>[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior]
>> Sounds reasonable. However sometimes package maintainer argueue that the
>> policy says "clean build environment" and having package X intalled is
>> no longer clean (thus I have a problem and buildds do not).
>
>Wh
Bernhard R. Link writes ("Re: /usr/share/info/dir.gz if install-info is
installed"):
> Packages not building in a real environment is a serious problem for our
> infrastructure. Having some extremely special build environment for your
> software betrays one of the most impo
* Sebastian Andrzej Siewior [100914 13:45]:
> Sounds reasonable. However sometimes package maintainer argueue that the
> policy says "clean build environment" and having package X intalled is
> no longer clean (thus I have a problem and buildds do not).
A package more installed is not a unclean b
[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior]
> Sounds reasonable. However sometimes package maintainer argueue that the
> policy says "clean build environment" and having package X intalled is
> no longer clean (thus I have a problem and buildds do not).
Where does the policy say that?
I can't find anything that
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 14:55:33 +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Cyril Brulebois , 2010-09-14, 12:00:
> >>So this is to let you know, to remove this package in order to
> >>avoid further problems :)
> >
> >packages really ought to build if that package is installed…
>
> Should these kind of bugs (FT
* Cyril Brulebois , 2010-09-14, 12:00:
So this is to let you know, to remove this package in order to avoid
further problems :)
packages really ought to build if that package is installed…
Should these kind of bugs (FTBFS or producing broken packages in
non-clean environment) be considered R
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:11:14PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> * Aurelien Jarno | 2010-09-14 11:59:51 [+0200]:
>
> >install-info is not present on the kfreebsd-i386 buildds, though it is
> >not possible that it was installed at some point.
Oops my fault. I wanted to say "not impossi
* Cyril Brulebois | 2010-09-14 12:53:20 [+0200]:
>Sebastian Andrzej Siewior (14/09/2010):
>> > packages really ought to build if that package is installed???
>> This is true. However you can't install two packages containing this
>> file.
>
>Sorry, I should have been more explicit: build *properl
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior (14/09/2010):
> > packages really ought to build if that package is installed…
> This is true. However you can't install two packages containing this
> file.
Sorry, I should have been more explicit: build *properly*, i.e. do
what's needed to avoid shipping that file in t
* Cyril Brulebois | 2010-09-14 12:10:01 [+0200]:
>Hi,
Hi,
>Sebastian Andrzej Siewior (14/09/2010):
>> So this is to let you know, to remove this package in order to avoid
>> further problems :)
>
>packages really ought to build if that package is installed???
This is true. However you can't inst
* Aurelien Jarno | 2010-09-14 11:59:51 [+0200]:
>install-info is not present on the kfreebsd-i386 buildds, though it is
>not possible that it was installed at some point.
Maybe it got removed in the meantime. If you look at [0] you see dir.gz.
If you look at build log from himalia1[1] and grep fo
Hi,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior (14/09/2010):
> So this is to let you know, to remove this package in order to avoid
> further problems :)
packages really ought to build if that package is installed…
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 11:08:13AM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I just built docbook2x and gettext and both contained the file mentioned
> in subject. install-info created dir which got gzip later in the build
> process. The strance thing is the almost none of the buildds s
Hello,
I just built docbook2x and gettext and both contained the file mentioned
in subject. install-info created dir which got gzip later in the build
process. The strance thing is the almost none of the buildds ship this
file. According to [0] only s390(lxdebian) ships this file in gettext
and qi
19 matches
Mail list logo
