libvigraimpex has been updated an don't FTBFS anymore (on most archs so far).
BTW there is a test failure on test/impex which puts out some EXR related error
[1]
(I've set this test to be failsafe). It would be interesting if this maybe
vanishes with
the more recent openEXR ...
DS
[1] https://
Hi Emilio!
On 2016-01-27 at 11:25 (CET), Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Do rdeps build fine against the new versions of the libraries?
Now I can say "Yes, they do" ;-)
The only missing piece is aqsis, which can be NMUed easily if its
maintainer doesn't reply to our request for an updated revisi
Hi!
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 5:37 PM Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Matteo F. Vescovi
> wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > On 2016-01-21 at 09:56 (CET), Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> >> Do rdeps build fine against the new versions of the libraries?
> >
> > FTR, better this ti
Hi!
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 5:37 PM Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Matteo F. Vescovi
> wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > On 2016-01-21 at 09:56 (CET), Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> >> Do rdeps build fine against the new versions of the libraries?
> >
> > FTR, better this ti
On 24.01.2016 17:36, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Matteo F. Vescovi wrote:
>
>> * libvigraimpex_1.10.0+dfsg-11 => FTBFS
>
> Well this is an issue within the python test:
>
> AttributeError: 'numpy.ndarray' object has no attribute 'axistags'
>
> This looks like so
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Matteo F. Vescovi wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On 2016-01-21 at 09:56 (CET), Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> Do rdeps build fine against the new versions of the libraries?
>
> FTR, better this time (based on rebuilds made last night):
>
> * aqsis_1.8.2-2 => FTBFS
patch is a
Hi!
On 2016-01-21 at 09:56 (CET), Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Do rdeps build fine against the new versions of the libraries?
FTR, better this time (based on rebuilds made last night):
* aqsis_1.8.2-2 => FTBFS
* blender_2.74+dfsg0-5 => FTBFS
* darktable_2.0.0-1 => OK
* exactimage_0.9.1-10 =>
On 2016-01-11 "Matteo F. Vescovi" wrote:
> On 2016-01-11 at 20:50 (CET), Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> Do rdeps build fine against the new versions of the libraries?
> Well, not so fine :-/
> Following, you'll find the r-deps for OpenEXR (and IlmBase as direct
> b-dep) and IlmBase (without Op
Hi!
On 2016-01-11 at 20:50 (CET), Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Do rdeps build fine against the new versions of the libraries?
Well, not so fine :-/
Following, you'll find the r-deps for OpenEXR (and IlmBase as direct
b-dep) and IlmBase (without OpenEXR interference).
### OpenEXR reverse-depe
Hi!
Il giorno dom 10 gen 2016 15:45 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
ha scritto:
> Do rdeps build fine against the new versions of the libraries?
Well, I did some tests on ilmbase r-deps a couple of months ago, just as a
preview of what was supposed to happen soon.
But probably those tests have been al
On 09/01/16 22:59, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: transition
>
> Hi
>
> I'd like to request a transition for openexr (and ilmbase).
Do rdeps build fine against the new versions of the libraries?
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
Hi
I'd like to request a transition for openexr (and ilmbase).
Ben file:
title = "openexr";
is_affected = .depends ~ "libopenexr6v5" | .depends ~ "libopenexr6";
is_good = .depends ~ "l
12 matches
Mail list logo
