On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 11:11:40AM +0100, Arnaud Vandyck wrote: > Wed, 5 Jan 2005 01:20:37 -0800, > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 09:48:02AM +0100, Arnaud Vandyck wrote: > >> Wed, 5 Jan 2005 02:02:29 +0100, > >> Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > * charva (- to 1.0.1-3) > >> > + Maintainer: Debian Java Maintainers > >> > + Section: contrib/libs > >> > + 342 days old (needed 10 days) > >> > + libcharva1-java/i386 unsatisfiable Depends: libcharva1-jni > >> > NOTE: don't understand the above dependency issue... > >> > + Valid candidate > >> charva has some part written in java (arch: all) and some in C. I think > >> I built it with my powerpc. > > The testing scripts only check the installability of arch: all packages on > > one of our architectures -- for obvious reasons, that architecture is i386. > > libcharva1-java seems to be a rara avis, an arch: all package that's not > > installable on i386. But it could be: I would suggest getting someone to do > > a binary upload of libcharva1-jni on i386. In general, I think getting > > contrib builds of JNI packages for both i386 and powerpc would be a good > > idea. > I don't know if free tools can do it easily. Well, presumably this is the challenge with contrib packages, yes? What I meant to say here was that I think it's a good idea to get JNI packages built for i386 and powerpc when possible; but a contrib JNI package that fails to build on "the" arch for non-free Java seems of limited use, IMHO, and I'm inclined to give such a package a pass for stable until it's more generally useful. (How's free Java in main coming again? :) > Anyway, I've just try to build it on x86 and it FTBFS :( Is this still the case? Is this related to the bugs in kaffe on i386? Cheers, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
