Gilles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So, you closed the bug report, with a remark (if I understood correctly) > that I should know better.
Yes, that's correct. Users of Debian unstable are expected to understand that packages are often not installable as soon as they hit the archive, most frequently because of just this: when a source package builds both arch any and arch all packages which depend on each other, the arch all package will hit the archive immediately, and be uninstallable, until the arch any package has been autobuilt. This is part of using Debian unstable, and it is simply not a bug. It happens a half dozen times every week or more. > A link to where the info lies would have been more helpful. Because the amd64 buildd maintainers do not participate in the regular buildd architecture, I cannot read the failed logs. All I can see is whether they have built it or not. > So, even if this is not considered a bug of the package you maintain, > it nonetheless makes it quite useless. Life is rough, isn't it? You just have to wait until the binary package gets built and installed. That's unstable. > Again, I understand, that these missing "Build-Depends" *might* be > temporary, and again, I don't know (sorry!) where I can gather more > information about whether something is being done about it, or whether > it *is* indeed wrong and might have gone unnoticed. For amd64, there isn't any way I know of because they don't participate in the regular buildd logging system. buildd.debian.org does provide access to the logs for everyone else. http://people.debian.org/~igloo/status.php provides a convenient way to query the buildd logs for all the archs and many packages at once. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
