Hi, During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build on amd64. Relevant part (hopefully): The full build log is available from: http://qa-logs.debian.net/2024/07/02/ruff_0.0.291+dfsg1-4_unstable.log All bugs filed during this archive rebuild are listed at: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=ftbfs-20240702;users=lucas@debian.org or: https://udd.debian.org/bugs/?release=na&merged=ign&fnewerval=7&flastmodval=7&fusertag=only&fusertagtag=ftbfs-20240702&fusertaguser=lucas@debian.org&allbugs=1&cseverity=1&ctags=1&caffected=1#results A list of current common problems and possible solutions is available at http://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/FTBFS . You're welcome to contribute! If you reassign this bug to another package, please mark it as 'affects'-ing this package. See https://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control#affects If you fail to reproduce this, please provide a build log and diff it with mine so that we can identify if something relevant changed in the meantime.
This issue would probably be fixed by an update to the latest upstream release. But there's significant work to be done: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1068248
Hi, all deps are currently in NEW, when they are in unstable I am going to package a more recent version of ruff. Best,
Is that still the case and your plan? From a cursory look, I think at least a few of the packages listed in #1068248 (#55) are now part of the archive, but I don't know what the full list is. If this FTBFS (#1074734) is indeed fixable by a new upstream (#1068248), and in turn blocked by NEW packages, you could probably do: block 1074734 by 1068248 block 1068248 by ITP#1 block 1068248 by ITP#2 ... My understanding from the latest "Bits from the DFSG team"[1], "Blocking Bugs" -> "bonus points" is that this could help in prioritizing the processing of some of these NEW packages. Thanks, Faidon 1: <20260212132552.46C7013F903@x1.int.tauware.de>
Hi, I do still plan to do this, however currently I have less time. Creating an ITP for rust crates is not mandatory, but thanks for giving this hint. The current WIP-branch is here: https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/packages/ruff/-/tree/wip?ref_type=heads I remember that the last blocker was to patch salsa-rs, it is in the archive, but upstream rather checks out a specific commit than using tags. In the future they plan to use tags. Following deps are in new: - rust-datatest-stable (#1123769) - rust-imperative Best,