On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 03:29:10PM +0100, Thomas Weber wrote: > Am Sonntag, den 26.11.2006, 15:05 -0800 schrieb Steve Langasek: > > > > Please fix your package instead to fail to build when there is a problem > > > > with octave-config, instead of misbuilding in this fashion.
> > > Yes, and then? > > And then the bug in octave2.1-forge is fixed, and there's something I can > > point to in bugging the buildd admins to fix the chroot. > > In any case, it's not an appropriate use of a binNMU to rebuild on ia64 when > > there's still a sourceful bug that allowed this misbuild in the first place. > May I suggest a different approach: we uploaded a fixed version of > octave2.1-forge, which already built fine. > We will upload a package of either octplot or semidef-oct which triggers > the bug, so there's something to point to. > These packages have the advantage of > - no reported bugs and an up-to-date version in testing and > - they build fast, > so if the chroot doesn't get fixed, there are no consequences for etch > and other architectures don't have to build time-consuming packages (for > octplot, the build time is about a factor 8 less on AMD64 than for > octave2.1-forge). Fair enough. Please let me know when you have one of these other packages uploaded. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
