Hi Nicolas
On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 at 15:04, Nicolas Boulenguez wrote:
> The package list generated by v3 looks correct.
> I agree that older libraries, if any, should also be reported.
Thanks for confirming! I've committed the change to the gnat-14
tracker, and moved it to 'old' so we can re-use i
Hello.
The package list generated by v3 looks correct.
I agree that older libraries, if any, should also be reported.
Thanks.
Hi Nicolas
I have prepared two variations of the gnat-14 tracker.
The first [1], has
is_bad = !.depends ~ /libgnat-14/;
instead of
is_bad = .depends ~ /libgnat/ & !.depends ~ /libgnat-14/;
but this has even more packages in the 'unknown' state (there are
matches for both is_good and is_bad).
> Please go ahead and upload gprbuild build directly to unstable.
> I'll follow up with the binNMUs.
Great!
Gprbuild/2025.0.0-4 passes its autopkgtests on salsa.
It is built and uploaded to unstable on several architectures.
Hi Nicolas
On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 at 16:18, Nicolas Boulenguez wrote:
> Should I upload gprbuild despite the freeze, or wait for first dot
> release? In the first case, should I wait after this bug is closed
> and open a distinct one? do an intermediate upload to experimental?
Please go ahead and
Package: release.debian.org
Followup-For: Bug #1099646
Hello.
As far as I understand, the transition is completed.
Two questions remain in the bug log, but none is blocking.
Should I close the bug?
Package: release.debian.org
Followup-For: Bug #1099646
I would like advice about a test that I broke during this transition.
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1100373
We have ignored it as a reproducibility issue, but another symptom is
that gprbuild recompiles generated Ada source
> It might be because e.g. the gprbuild binary package has a dependency
> on libgnatprj12.
> I am open to trying suggestions for improving the ben file.
Apparently
.source ~ /gcc/ in is_affected
intends to match gcc-11 gcc-12 gcc-13 gcc-14-cross-ports and so on.
.depends ~ /libgnat/ in is_bad
Hi Nicolas
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 at 18:06, Nicolas Boulenguez wrote:
> As far as I understand, the only remaining blocker is #1100461 (ghdl).
That seems to be uploaded already, 5.0.1+dfsg-1 is currently binNEW.
> I wonder why gprbuild libgnatcoll libgnatcoll-bindings libgnatcoll-db
> are orange i
Package: release.debian.org
Followup-For: Bug #1099646
As far as I understand, the only remaining blocker is #1100461 (ghdl).
I wonder why gprbuild libgnatcoll libgnatcoll-bindings libgnatcoll-db
are orange in the transition tracker. Maybe the severity change in
#1100373 (gprbuild) did confuse t
Control: block -1 by 1096181 1100460 1100461
On 2025-03-12 10:44:04 -0100, Graham Inggs wrote:
> Hi Nicolas
>
> The binNMU of alire was scheduled, but FTBFS on armel and armhf [1].
>
> I assumed this is the same issue reported in #1096181, so I marked the
> bug affecting alire and tagged it ftbf
Hi Nicolas
The binNMU of alire was scheduled, but FTBFS on armel and armhf [1].
I assumed this is the same issue reported in #1096181, so I marked the
bug affecting alire and tagged it ftbfs.
For the record, the armel and armhf builds were retried recently with
gcc-14 14.2.0-18 in unstable, but
12 matches
Mail list logo
