[Reproducible-builds] ftbfs_build-indep_not_build_on_armhf, and add bochs to it
sanvila at debian.org
Fri Jun 3 21:13:29 UTC 2016
[ Note: this is a reply to a message from reproducible-commits,
trimming the subject just a little bit ]
On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 04:49:10PM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
> + description: |
> + Package build-indep target will fail on armhf.
> + deterministic: True
> description: |
> FTBFS with some unrelated values of the environment variables (lang, timezone, ...)
> diff --git a/packages.yml b/packages.yml
> index 362d7b7..d417fcb 100644
> --- a/packages.yml
> +++ b/packages.yml
> @@ -1006,6 +1006,10 @@ bobcat:
> version: 4.01.04-1
> - random_order_in_static_libraries
> + version: 2.6-5
> + issues:
> + - ftbfs_build-indep_not_build_on_armhf
This new issue is a little bit surprising.
Sometimes, packages generating "Arch: all" binary packages have good
reasons to require that those packages are built only under certain
In the case of "bochs", there are some hints about the reasons in
Bug #481147 (which I closed recently because, well, it seemed "as
fixed as it can be" to me).
A similar case also happens with the "aboot" package, which generates an
"Arch: all" package which apparently may only be generated under the
alpha architecture (see Bug #805988).
An "issue" suggests to me "something which has eventually to be fixed",
but frankly, I don't think we should really require that those
packages generate their "Arch: all" binary packages from any other
So, instead of "this package needs to be fixed", those packages would
maybe deserve a "this package should not be built on such architecture
because it is simply not supposed to work".
Do you think it would be possible to achieve the same result with a
"banned packages" list which is architecture-specific instead of this
(Or maybe your plan was to make the autobuilder to be aware of packages
having this issue precisely to avoid the build?)
More information about the Reproducible-builds