On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 09:33:36PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote: > I think you have some major problem with the build environment:
No, the build environment is a clean sid environment... on all 12 architectures where your package is now failing. > # 0.7.5-7.1+b1 (alpha) (latest build at Apr 15 07:39: maybe-failed) > # 0.7.5-7.1+b1 (i386) (latest build at Apr 14 18:07: maybe-failed) > # 0.7.5-7.1+b1 (s390) (latest build at Apr 15 18:09: maybe-failed) > # 0.7.5-7.1+b1 (mipsel) (latest build at Apr 14 18:12: maybe-failed) > # 0.7.5-7.1+b1 (sparc) (latest build at Apr 14 18:36: maybe-failed) > # 0.7.5-7.1+b1 (ia64) (latest build at Apr 14 19:01: maybe-failed) > # 0.7.5-7.1+b1 (powerpc) (latest build at Apr 14 18:51: maybe-failed) > # 0.7.5-7.1+b1 (mips) (latest build at Apr 14 20:06: maybe-failed) > # 0.7.5-7.1+b1 (hppa) (latest build at Apr 14 21:46: maybe-failed) > # 0.7.5-7.1+b1 (m68k) (latest build at Apr 21 10:44: maybe-failed) > # 0.7.5-7.1+b1 (arm) (latest build at Apr 15 16:59: maybe-failed) > # 0.7.5-7.1+b1 (amd64) (latest build at Apr 22 05:57: maybe-failed) > And now everone fail... > I fail to see how the source can have changed to be that bad. Your source didn't change, this was a binNMU. What *did* change is one of the build-dependencies: specificially, these binNMUs were scheduled for the new upstream version of directfb, which apparently, directvnc 0.7.5 isn't compatible with. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
