Debian Bug report logs - #476823
ltsp - FTBFS: error: current host architecture 's390' does not appear in package's architecture list (amd64 i386 powerpc)

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org>

To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Subject: ltsp - FTBFS: error: current host architecture 's390' does not appear in package's architecture list (amd64 i386 powerpc)

Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:03:48 +0200

Package: ltsp
Version: 5.1.3-1
Severity: serious

There was an error while trying to autobuild your package:

> Automatic build of ltsp_5.1.3-1 on debian-31.osdl.marist.edu by sbuild/s390 98
[...]
> dh_gencontrol -a
> dpkg-gencontrol: error: current host architecture 's390' does not appear in package's architecture list (amd64 i386 powerpc)
> dh_gencontrol: command returned error code 65280
> make: *** [binary-arch] Error 1
> dpkg-buildpackage: failure: /usr/bin/fakeroot debian/rules binary-arch gave error exit status 2
> ******************************************************************************
> Build finished at 20080416-1843
> FAILED [dpkg-buildpackage died]

Message #10 received at 476823@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: vagrant@freegeek.org

To: Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org>, 476823@bugs.debian.org

Cc: 477506-quiet@bugs.debian.org, 477506-submitter@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Bug#476823: ltsp - FTBFS: error: current host architecture 's390' does not appear in package's architecture list (amd64 i386 powerpc)

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:00:14 -0700

tags 476823 help
tags 477506 help
thanks

On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 02:03:48PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> There was an error while trying to autobuild your package:
> 
> > Automatic build of ltsp_5.1.3-1 on debian-31.osdl.marist.edu by sbuild/s390 98
> [...]
> > dh_gencontrol -a
> > dpkg-gencontrol: error: current host architecture 's390' does not appear in package's architecture list (amd64 i386 powerpc)

this was intentional, as ltsp doesn't really have testing network boot
support for most architectures, and many architectures don't really seem
to likely to be useful as thin-clients.

i'm having trouble finding documentation for the process to reduce the
number of architectures for a set of packages.

changing "Architecture: any" to "Architecture: foo bar baz" clearly
seems to stop the package from sucessfully building, but doesn't stop a
buildd from attempting to build the package.

from what i've gathered, i'll need to contact ftp-master and/or
debian-release about getting the packages removed from unstable and
testing?

thanks for your help!

live well,
  vagrant

Message #17 received at 476823@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Petter Reinholdtsen <pere@hungry.com>

To: 476823@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org>, 477506-submitter@bugs.debian.org, 477506-quiet@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: ltsp - FTBFS: error: current host architecture 's390' does not appear in package's architecture list (amd64 i386 powerpc)

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:12:13 +0200

[Vagrant Cascadian]
> from what i've gathered, i'll need to contact ftp-master and/or
> debian-release about getting the packages removed from unstable and
> testing?

You need to submit a BTS issue against the ftp.debian.org
pseudopackage, asking for the removal of the binary packages for the
packages no longer supported by the ltsp package.

See <URL:http://bugs.debian.org/474444> for an example.

Happy hacking,
-- 
Petter Reinholdtsen

Message #22 received at 476823@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi>

To: 476823@bugs.debian.org

Subject: ltsp - FTBFS: error: current host architecture 's390' does not appear in package's architecture list (amd64 i386 powerpc)

Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 17:25:08 +0300

> this was intentional, as ltsp doesn't really have testing network boot
> support for most architectures, and many architectures don't really seem
> to likely to be useful as thin-clients.

People do _sell_ arm/mips based thin clients, so "amd64 i386 powerpc"
seems overly restrictive.

-- 
"rm -rf" only sounds scary if you don't have backups

Message #27 received at 476823@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: vagrant@freegeek.org

To: Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi>, 476823@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Bug#476823: ltsp - FTBFS: error: current host architecture 's390' does not appear in package's architecture list (amd64 i386 powerpc)

Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 08:47:13 -0700

On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 05:25:08PM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> > this was intentional, as ltsp doesn't really have testing network boot
> > support for most architectures, and many architectures don't really seem
> > to likely to be useful as thin-clients.
> 
> People do _sell_ arm/mips based thin clients, so "amd64 i386 powerpc"
> seems overly restrictive.

i would gladly add back support for any architectures that have people
who are committed to keeping it working with ltsp, and be happy to
assist them in doing so.

at the moment, support for arm* and mips* is untested.

live well,
  vagrant

Message #32 received at 476823-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: vagrant@freegeek.org

To: 476823-done@bugs.debian.org

Subject: #476823 ltsp - FTBFS: error: current host architecture 's390' does not appear in package's architecture list (amd64 i386 powerpc)

Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:13:21 -0700

Version: 5.1.5-1

s390 appears to have marked ltsp as "Not for us", closing.

live well,
  vagrant

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.