[Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#684828: backbone: FTBFS: build-dependency not installable: libnode-uglify

[Lucas Nussbaum]

reopen 684828
thanks

On 25/08/12 at 19:11 -0400, David Prévot wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> Hi Lucas, QA contributors,
> 
> Le 14/08/2012 03:18, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
> > Source: backbone
> […]
> > Justification: FTBFS in wheezy on amd64
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > During a rebuild of all packages in *wheezy*, your package failed to
> > build on amd64.
> […]
> >> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> >>  sbuild-build-depends-backbone-dummy : Depends: libnode-uglify but it is not installable
> >> E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.
> >> apt-get failed.
> 
> Actually its an OR dependency:
> 
>  libnode-uglify | yui-compressor
> 
> The package builds fine in a Wheezy amd64 pbuilder chroot (pulling
> yui-compressor), thus closing the bug. I just wanted to put some light
> on this issue: maybe the resolver used to perform the archive rebuild
> could be improved to avoid this kind of false positive.

Hi,

By default, sbuild ignores alternative build-dependencies (a | b) and
only uses the first package. that is to ensure reproducible builds, and
avoid situations where packages build against different b-deps on
different architectures. So the bug is valid, and should be fixed in
wheezy (and I'm not aware of the release team considering those failures
non-RC).

> I've tagged a few FTBFS on wheezy as unreproducible (because I didn't
> investigate why it failed ten days ago, or because I couldn't find an
> obvious reason), should I simply have closed them?

Did you Cc me? I have very little time for Debian recently, but try to
keep up with bugmail where I'm Cced.

Anyway, a good way to make progress is usually to provide a build log,
and a diff between my log and your log.

Lucas