Web lists-archives.com

Re: Exclicitly or "implicitly" mark architectures a packages does not build




Hi,

update on querying BTS for packages that can not build on a certain architecture:

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 11:46:53PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 07:24:28PM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 08:10:19PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > > May be I should write an according query and than close all those
> > > bugs ...
> > 
> > please do ;)
> 
> OK, I'm working on this:
> 
>   https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-qa/check_build_depends.git/tree/query_missing_build_depends.sh

As I said in previous mail: I can perfectly reproduce the manual bug
reports for the Debian Med team.  I added a debug option to track down
false positives (which were non currently).   I also checked for
differenzes between different architectures like this (make sure you
add '-m' option to use public mirror if you have no UDD clone on your
local machine!):

   query_missing_build_depends.sh -o i386  > i386
   query_missing_build_depends.sh -o arm64 > arm64
   diff -u i386 arm64

I consider the fact that this script seems to work sufficient reason to
close the according bug reports for the reasons given in the beginning
of this thread.

Kind regards

       Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de