Gilles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Well, I did think of this possibility, that's why I didn't raise the issue > before several days. As I imagined that the build would be attempted every > day, and although the subversion was modified during these last days, I > couldn't understand why the mismatch persisted.
Sometimes autobuilding takes weeks. In this case there was a very obscure bug which only manifested itself in the autobuild environment and nowhere else. > It seems to me that this indicates that the problem is not a matter of build > timing between an arch-specific package and an arch-independent package. > Am I wrong? Yes. There were bugs in building the package; those bugs were reported and fixed as they arose. But there was not a bug in the fact that lilypond-data was uninstallable for a while. >> 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. > Well, shouldn't this be considered a bug? Yes. Feel free to report it to the buildd people and the amb64 autobuild people. It's not *my* bug. > Furthermore, there seems to be an inconsistency between the link "status" > page you use (http://people.debian.org/~igloo/status.php), which indicates > "building" and the "amd64" arch log above. Yes. As I said, the amb64 people don't export their logs in the standard way, so the status page doesn't list them correctly. > Hmm, from what I've read in > http://www.debian.org/devel/buildd/wanna-build-states > there is a chance that one could wait forever. That's correct. > That's why I'd thought safer to report, and be sure everything is OK. That's incorrect. > So, the questions are: Why are these build dependencies not satisfied, > and when will they be? Ask the amd64 buildd maintainer. You should be able to reach them at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
