Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > * On all three packages, the arm build failed because of an >> > unsatisfiable build dependency that was the result of a timing >> > problem. These should succeed now as the problem with the >> > dependent package has been cleared. I emailed >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] to request these to be rebuilt. Is there >> >> In this case you don't have to do anything about arm for your package: >> >> http://www.buildd.net/cgi/package_status?all_pkg=xerces25&searchtype=go >> >> arm: libs/xerces25_2.5.0-2: Dep-Wait by buildd_arm-europa [extra:out-of-date] >> Dependencies: libicu28-dev >> Previous state was Building until 2004 Jun 17 20:04:28 > > Okay, thanks. I had been looking at build logs and saw the maybe-failed > but I didn't check the status. (I didn't know about this, though I > had a bookmark to buildd.debian.net. Oops.) > >> BUT: >> >> arm: libs/icu28_2.8-3: Building by buildd_arm-netwinder [optional:uncompiled] >> Previous state was Needs-Build until 2004 Jun 13 02:33:44 >> >> You might want to check this out. It certainly isn't still >> building. Did it fail? Should it be retried? Does it need bugsfixes? >> Check for buildd logs and bugreports. > > Yes, it seems the most recent arm build failed, but yet the current > icu28 (2.8-3) is in testing. Perhaps someone built it manually. > There are no bugs posted again icu28.
In testing but not in unstable for arm? Or in testing without arm support? >> Check buildd.net: >> >> arm: libs/xerces23_2.3.0-3: Dep-Wait by buildd_arm-europa [extra:out-of-date] >> >> mips: libs/xerces23_2.3.0-3: Not-For-Us [extra:out-of-date] >> mipsel: libs/xerces23_2.3.0-3: Installed by rmurray-repeat [extra:out-of-date] > >> Those two puzzle me. Why does mipsel build on mipsel and every other >> arch but is not-for-us on mips? Unless you have a good reason not to >> support mips please mention that to our leader too. > > Hmm.... what does Not-For-Us mean? My packages all had either > Architecture: any or Architecture: all, so I don't see why this would > happen. http://people.debian.org/~wouter/wanna-build-states not-for-us Certain specific packages are architecture-specific; for instance, "lilo", an i386 boot loader, should not be rebuilt on alpha, m68k, or s390. ... This is something set when a package does not support an architecture or causes problems for buildds. http://www.buildd.net/buildd/Packages-arch-specific is a global list for such packages while buildd admins can put packages into the not-for-us state for a single arch which seems to be your case. You need to talk to the mips buildd admin to revert that. >> alpha: libs/xerces24_2.4.0-2: Needs-Build [extra:out-of-date] >> >> Not a big surprise there, just wait or fiond someone with an alpha to >> build it manually. > > Is this just not a big surprise because of the much-discussed long > backlog? yes. >> mips, mipsel, powerpc: libs/xerces24_2.4.0-2: Not-For-Us [extra:out-of-date] >> >> Why do you support even less archs? > > I'd like to know that too. I don't think it's anything I did. How > would I find out? > > Thanks for your helpful and thorough response. > > --Jay Ask the buildd admins since its not on the global list. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
