On 09/08/2012 08:53 AM, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Mon, 2012-08-27 at 22:06 -0700, tony mancill wrote: >> On 08/18/2012 05:03 AM, Neil Williams wrote: >>> Just to help those scanning the RC bug lists, the binNMU request for >>> bobcat is #683244. The binNMU for c++-annotations would need to be >>> requested later. >>> >>> I've done a simple test in a pbuilder chroot and the principle of the >>> request does fix these two RC bugs. > [...] >> Thank you for verifying the proposed binNMU. Any advice on how to >> proceed with this for bobcat from the maintainer perspective? > > We'd still like to know what actually caused the issue, really. "Some > unknown issue that seems to have gone away now" doesn't fill one with > huge amounts of confidence.
Agreed. It's merely a supposition that it could be related to issues addressed in the gcc 4.7.1 release [1]. > In any case, to keep things moving I've scheduled binNMUs for bobcat. > Note that binNMUs can't close bugs, so if the binNMUs are successful > then you'll need to take care of closing #683049 yourself. I see that the builds were successful on everything except hurd-i386, which is blocked on a build-dep. Will the binNMU eventually migrate into wheezy, or does that require an unblock bug to be filed against release.d.o? > If further binNMUs for c++-annotations are still required, please > request those via a new bug, once the bobcat binNMUs have successfully > built everywhere. Yes, I will do this. Thank you for your help. tony [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_status=RESOLVED&resolution=FIXED&target_milestone=4.7.1
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
