On 04/06/2013 12:53 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
If there are other reasons to migrate the package, potentially, but...
Well, there aren't.
Which versions of the package FTBFS on s390x? There are setools binary
packages in testing on that architecture, so it obviously built at some
point; wha
On Sat, 2013-04-06 at 12:48 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 04/04/2013 10:10 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > None of arm, m68k or ppc64 are in Debian right now, so the package's
> > buildability on them doesn't seem particularly relevant.
>
> True! But the additional symbol tables for
On 04/04/2013 10:10 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
None of arm, m68k or ppc64 are in Debian right now, so the package's
buildability on them doesn't seem particularly relevant.
True! But the additional symbol tables for these architectures shouldn't
hurt the other architectures as well. The diff i
On Thu, 2013-04-04 at 23:25 +0200, Nick Andrik wrote:
> > Which versions of the package FTBFS on s390x? There are setools binary
> > packages in testing on that architecture, so it obviously built at some
> > point; what changed?
>
> I think this is what you are looking for:
> https://buildd.debia
> Which versions of the package FTBFS on s390x? There are setools binary
> packages in testing on that architecture, so it obviously built at some
> point; what changed?
I think this is what you are looking for:
https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=setools&arch=s390x
Not building for s390
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
Note: due to the size of the diff, this never made it to -release
On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 03:36 +0100, Nick Andrik wrote:
> I would like to request a freeze exception for setools/3.3.7-3.3.
> The change refers to updating/adding .symbols.* files in order to fix
> FTBFS i
6 matches
Mail list logo
