Le Lundi 27 Mars 2006 11:54, vous avez écrit :
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Daniel Schepler wrote:
> > By the way: my latest experiment is putting in a hook script to build
> > everything as if it were a binNMU, with a version of e.g. 1.2-3+pb1, in
> > order to help apt distinguish those versions from the official ones. The
> > good news is that most packages build with no problem like this; on the
> > other hand, a few of them FTBFS or break. What would be the appropriate
> > severity for such bugs? I'm leaning towards "serious" myself, since the
> > release team should expect to be able to schedule binNMU's without
> > worrying whether they'll work.
>
> Could you provide a list of affected packages (and maintainers)
> somewhere? (And yes, I think serious is probably the correct severity
> should you decide to file bugs)
I haven't gotten all the way through, so I don't have a complete list. I'm
planning to start filing bugs soon, though, and I could classify them with a
usertag if you like (once I figure out how assigning them works).
Just off the top of my head, some of the more notable ones are:
apt -- The only one in a pbuilder chroot to fail to build.
libsoup -- Builds but with a broken shlibs file, causing several other
packages to FTBFS locally.
pango1.0 -- The only one I've filed a bug on so far (#358127).
jfsutils -- The udeb for some reason gets built as a .deb instead, which I
noticed from its showing up in the new packages list in aptitude.
And by the way, I also won't catch versioned dependencies on
"foo-data (= ${Source-Version})", since I build the arch-indep packages here
too.
--
Daniel Schepler
