[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 <cheusov%tut.by@localhost> writes:
> >> 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.
> In most cases dependancy is correct and the real problem is in
> dependant package. This is why I include a maintainer of the dependant
> package by default. In general only human can recognize the "right
> person" to contact. Sometimes bugs in mk/ scripts or buildlinks3.mk or
> anywhere else may cause the problem.
Don't talk about "most cases", there're correct ways and incorrect ones.
In "most cases" you don't see races and even don't need locks.
You are to include correct maintainer, in this case maintainer
of actually failed package, not the dependency.
Even in case of infrastructure bugs, first suspect is the package broken,
not infrastructure breakage.
> Anyway, the phrase "wip/slate needs wip/ecl which is failed and
> maintained by asau@" is not blame or offence.
It is. Since it is failure of wip/slate, not of wip/ecl.
> "wip/ecl is failed and maintained by asau@" is already in the "Failed
> packages" section of the report.
I do not want to be associated with any package I don't care of,
in this particular case the package fails because of lack of
maintainance, not because some other package, even listed as
Note, that even until now you haven't looked at wip/slate to find,
what the issue is.
One more time: Slate does not require Lisp to build.
If you tried to look at MASTER_SITES, you would've found that
the package is terribly outdated (not to mention that the very
Slate is abandoned). Thus listing any person except wip/slate
maintainer is inappropriate.
>> Otherwise you start accusing compiler
>> writers for their compiler stops at errors, thus preventing builds
>> of some depending programs.
> This analogy is totally wrong.
This analogy is totally true.
Main Index |
Thread Index |