On Wed, Apr 29 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Colin Watson <cjwat...@debian.org> writes:
>
>> I happened to notice recently that debian-policy 3.8.1.0 fails to
>> build due to a missing build-dependency on texlive-latex-extra. Since
>> it's Architecture: all, of course, it's easy to miss this in Debian,
>> but I noticed it in Ubuntu and then verified it in a relatively clean
>> Debian chroot:
>>
>>
>> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/26062790/buildlog_ubuntu-karmic-i386.debian-policy_3.8.1.0_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz>
>> I've committed a fix to our git repository, of course, but I sort of
>> feel that we shouldn't leave this kind of thing lying around for too
>> long in debian-policy of all places. :-) Russ and others, would anyone
>> mind if I rolled 3.8.2.0 with what we have now? Or does somebody else
>> want to, or is there a reason not to do so (e.g. too much
>> Standards-Version churn)?
>
> Well, that's unfortunate. I intentionally removed the dependency on
> texlive-latex-extra after testing a build with it absent to be sure that
> nothing required it because texlive-latex-extra is kind of insane and
> makes the package take forever to build since it has to set up a ton of
> expensive LaTeX packages.
>
> I wonder what broke about my testing.
>
> I suppose I should have erred on the side of caution rather than trying
> to make package builds less annoying. Sorry about that.
>
> I don't mind a release with what we have now. The churn is unfortunate
> since there's nothing particularly exciting in the changes committed so
> far, but I hate to leave FTBFS bugs lingering for that reason.
Why not 3.8.1.1? Or do we have normative changes in there
already?
manoj
--
drug, n: A substance that, injected into a rat, produces a scientific
paper.
Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
