Debian Bug report logs - #477506
ltsp_5.1.3-1(sparc/unstable):

Toggle useless messages

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

From: Martin Zobel-Helas <zobel@ftbfs.de>

To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Subject: ltsp_5.1.3-1(sparc/unstable):

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:59:41 +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 spontini by sbuild/sparc 99.99
> Build started at 20080421-1234

[...]

> ** Using build dependencies supplied by package:
> Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 4), flex, bison, libpopt-dev, po-debconf

[...]

> dh_installdebconf -a
> dh_installinit -a --no-start
> dh_installinit -pltsp-client-core --name=ltsp-client-setup --no-start -u"start 32 S ."
> dh_installman -pltsp-client-core
> dh_link -a
> dh_strip -a
> dh_compress -a
> dh_fixperms -a
> dh_installdeb -a
> dh_shlibdeps -a
> dh_gencontrol -a
> dpkg-gencontrol: error: current host architecture 'sparc' 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

A full build log can be found at:
http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?arch=sparc&pkg=ltsp&ver=5.1.3-1

Message #12 received at 477506-quiet@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 #20 received at 477506-quiet@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 #28 received at 477506-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: vagrant@freegeek.org

To: 477506-done@bugs.debian.org

Subject: #477506: ltsp_5.1.3-1(sparc/unstable)

Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:54:42 -0700

Version: 5.1.5

looks like sparc has marked ltsp as "Not for us", so closing.

live well,
  vagrant

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.