[Pkg-octave-devel] Bug#511817: inline-octave: inline-octave 0.22-3 FTBFS

[Thomas Weber]

Am Mittwoch, den 14.01.2009, 23:51 +0100 schrieb Rafael Laboissiere:
> * Thomas Weber <thomas.weber.mail at gmail.com> [2009-01-14 20:42]:
> 
> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 06:28:59PM +0100, Alessio Treglia wrote:
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > > 
> > > Package: inline-octave
> > > Version: 0.22-3
> > > Severity: serious
> > > Justification: no longer builds from source
> > > 
> > > the package [1] FTBFS on all architectures.
> >
> > > [1] https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/inline-octave/0.22-3ubuntu1
> > 
> > No, it doesn't, at least if you don't fiddle blindly with the
> > build-dependencies.
> 
> Thanks for closing this false bug report, Thomas.
> 
> To the bug reporter: we thank you for your time in reporting the problem
> but, please, next time try to be sure that the problem actually regards the
> Debian package and not the Ubuntu one.  Debian maintainers are not
> necessarily concerned by problems in the derived Ubuntu packages.  In the
> present case, the MOTU Developers inadvertently bumped the build-dependency
> from octave2.1 to octave3.0.

What I don't understand is that the person who made this change
obviously didn't check whether the package still builds afterwards. And
I don't think it was done 'inadvertently', the changelog and the bug
reports are pretty clear:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/inline-octave/+bug/210279
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/inline-octave/+bug/211156

Someone changes something in a package, than it FTBFS and instead of
looking at the change, let's just file a bug and let it rot for > 8
months. Did I miss some new trend in QA?

> This makes me think about what should be done as regards this package
> post-lenny. It doesn't seem to have any sign of upstream development since
> ages (well, at least since four years) and octave2.1 will be dropped from
> squeeze.  Should we try to port the package to octave3.0 or simply drop it
> also?

I think we should drop it. I don't use it, you don't seem use it, so we
are the wrong persons for taking over upstream maintenance.

	Thomas