pkgsrc-Bulk archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: pkgsrc-current-destdir Linux 2.6.24-1-686-bigmem/i686 bulk build results 20080829.1720

Aleksey Cheusov <> writes:

>  >> Failed due to dependencies
>  >>
>  >>   Package                    Failed dependencies        Maintainer
>  >>
>  >>   wip/slate                  wip/ecl                    
>> Stop posting these results. Except "blame them" ethic issues,
>> they're simply wrong.

> There are no "ethic issues" in distbb output.
> I don't understand your aggression.

There are plenty of them. Your output is made to accuse wrong maintainer.
That wip/slate doesn't build has no relation to me, since I don't care
of it. Even if it fails due to failed dependency, that should be checked
by slate's maintainer, since the dependency may be wrong. Especially
when it is WIP package.

> If your package fails and distbb lists it, just fix it and be quite.

It is not my package failure, it is your failure to address correct
maintainer, I do not maintain wip/slate, if dependency is incorrect,
it isn't my fault.

> If you don't understand why your package fails and you have no access
> to Linux (or cannot reproduce and/or debug the problem), ask me and I'll try
> to help you.

Again, the line above is about wip/slate failure, I do not maintain it,
hence my name isn't to be listed there. You list it there, consequently
this is bug in your software.

>> wip/slate failure is not because of wip/ecl,
> See below.
>> it is because of wip/slate maintainer fault to keep the package
>> up to date.
> So, what??? Distbb says you "If you need wip/slate package, fix wip/ecl
> package or remove this dependency". What's the problem?

This is problem of slate maintainer, not mine.

In this case he should have checked the recent slate version and
find that it doesn't depend on Lisp at all. Thus it is failure
of maintainer of wip/slate package. I do not have anything to do
with it.

>> Slate doesn't depend on Lisp. Go figure.
> wip/slate/Makefile:
>    ...
>    BUILD_DEPENDS+=         ecl>=0.9c:../../wip/ecl
> wip/slate depends on wip/ecl, this is why slate fails "indirectly" (in
> terms of pbulk).

Again, I do not care of wip/slate, all problems with it should go to
responsible party, which is maintainer of wip/slate, not me.

> Suppose
>   1) you need a package A
>   2) package A depends on B
>   3) B fails => A fails "indirectly"
> In such situtations (in most cases), it makes sense to contact
> maintainer of the package B. This is why your email is there.

No. In any case first person to be responsible for failure of package
is that package maintainer. Otherwise you start accusing compiler
writers for their compiler stops at errors, thus preventing builds
of some depending programs.

>> Fix your software, since it fails in producing valid and useful reports.
> distbb generates correct and useful results.

No it doesn't.

In this case you silently accuse me for problems in package,
which I don't maintain. wip/slate was terribly outdated, that's
why it fails, not because wip/ecl fails, which is separate question.

wip/slate is maintained by noone, noone is interested in it,
and that is to be reflected in your report, if you listed proper
maintainer, every reasonable person understood that the problem
is in wip/slate, since it may be unmaintained or abandoned.
In your willful ignorance or evil will you direct all blames
to wrong person. It is me, and I don't like it.

> Just stop your aggression.

Just fix your software or stop posting irrelevant reports at once.


Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index