Hi,
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 03:45:29AM -0500, Michael Lustfield wrote:
> Here we go...
>
> The packer failure seems very unsurprising and I expect it to be an easy one
> to
> deal with. Every other reverse build dependency that ratt detected built
> without failure.
So we could try to see if we
Here we go...
The packer failure seems very unsurprising and I expect it to be an easy one to
deal with. Every other reverse build dependency that ratt detected built
without failure.
2017/04/20 02:48:27 Build results:
2017/04/20 02:48:27 PASSED: influxdb_1.1.1+dfsg1-2
2017/04/20 02:48:27 PASSED:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 07:22:00 +
Niels Thykier wrote:
>
> * First of all. AFAIUT, the change will at least possibly break the
>following packages:
>
> * [...]
I'm not sure how big the list is, but I plan to narrow it down in the near
future.
>They need to be fixed or removed
Control: tags -1 moreinfo
Michael Lustfield:
> Package: release.debian.org
> User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: unblock
> Severity: normal
>
> Please unblock package golang-go.crypto
>
> About 18 days ago, a security issue was patched [1] in this package. For
> reasons
> n
Package: release.debian.org
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Severity: normal
Please unblock package golang-go.crypto
About 18 days ago, a security issue was patched [1] in this package. For reasons
not directly related to the CVE [2], an upload to unstable was done
5 matches
Mail list logo
