On Monday 05 February 2007 21:53, Mark Purcell wrote:
> I can't recreate my build environment from Oct 06.
>
> And I can't reproduce the bug, additionally I don't have the hardware to test.
One theory though looking at the time line:
asterisk-chan-capi (0.7.1-1) would of been built against
aste
On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 11:46:43AM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> Two possibilities:
> - It works. We can't even reproduce the bug, except with a specific
>binary that we cannot recreate from sources. Frankly, I'm clueless
>what to do next then.
In that case, I think it would be reas
On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 12:40:03AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 10:52:27PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>> I have reasons to believe that the i386 build of asterisk-chan-capi
>> was hosed in some way, because several people report that the
>> package in the archive ma
reassign 406064 asterisk-chan-capi
severity 406064 serious
severity 408256 serious
merge 406064 408256
thanks
This bug is by itself severity at most important because it touches
only i386 and none of the other architectures, and only in some
situations. However, I think that etch should not releas
Hi,
I have reasons to believe that the i386 build of asterisk-chan-capi
was hosed in some way, because several people report that the package
in the archive makes a segfault for them, but that the exact same
package compiled from Debian sources on their machine or on the
pkg-voip private autobuild
5 matches
Mail list logo
