On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 10:05:33AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 06:17:51AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 04:03:29PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * Arthur Loiret (aloi...@debian.org) [090819 16:02]:
> > > > It seems I gave-it back too, at the same
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 06:17:51AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 04:03:29PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Arthur Loiret (aloi...@debian.org) [090819 16:02]:
> > > It seems I gave-it back too, at the same time, hadn't seen your mail yet
> > > ... :-)
> >
> > now it builds
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 04:03:29PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Arthur Loiret (aloi...@debian.org) [090819 16:02]:
> > It seems I gave-it back too, at the same time, hadn't seen your mail yet
> > ... :-)
>
> now it builds again. Good.
Still failed :(
Mike
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debi
* Arthur Loiret (aloi...@debian.org) [090819 16:02]:
> It seems I gave-it back too, at the same time, hadn't seen your mail yet ...
> :-)
now it builds again. Good.
Cheers,
Andi
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Co
It seems I gave-it back too, at the same time, hadn't seen your mail yet ... :-)
2009/8/19, Andreas Barth :
> * Paul Wise (p...@debian.org) [090819 15:28]:
>> It appears the main difference between failure and success in the
>> experimental buildds was gcc-4.3 4.3.3-13 vs 4.3.3-14. Since gcc-4.3 h
* Paul Wise (p...@debian.org) [090819 15:28]:
> It appears the main difference between failure and success in the
> experimental buildds was gcc-4.3 4.3.3-13 vs 4.3.3-14. Since gcc-4.3 has
> had an update since then to a new release-candidate, perhaps a give-back
> on alpha will fix this issue if t
On Wed, 2009-08-19 at 14:20 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > But the previous version, 1.9.1-1, failed, and there is really no
> > difference in 1.9.1.1-1 that would explain that.
> >
> > On the other hand, 1.9.1-1 was built with:
> > Toolchain package versions: libc6.1-dev_2.9-13 g++-4.3_4.3.3-13
[Ccing d-alpha now]
* Mike Hommey (m...@glandium.org) [090719 09:22]:
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 10:56:09AM +0200, Paul Wise wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 07:27 +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> >
> > > Just given back on alpha. Lets see if it helps.
> >
> > Doesn't look like it did. The version in ex
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 10:56:09AM +0200, Paul Wise wrote:
> fixed 532447 1.9.1.1-1
> thanks
>
> On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 07:27 +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
>
> > Just given back on alpha. Lets see if it helps.
>
> Doesn't look like it did. The version in experimental seems to build on
> alpha though:
>
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> fixed 532447 1.9.1.1-1
Bug#532447: xulrunner_1.9.0.10-1(alpha/unstable): FTBFS on alpha - test failure
Bug marked as fixed in version 1.9.1.1-1.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tr
fixed 532447 1.9.1.1-1
thanks
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 07:27 +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> Just given back on alpha. Lets see if it helps.
Doesn't look like it did. The version in experimental seems to build on
alpha though:
http://experimental.debian.net/fetch.php?&pkg=xulrunner&ver=1.9.1.1-1&arch=al
Paul Wise wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 21:39 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
>
>> There may be something weird with the toolchain, because the same
>> version[1] as the latest that failed on alpha built on the security
>> buildds for lenny.
>
> Perhaps the alpha porters list should be contacted to re
On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 21:39 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> There may be something weird with the toolchain, because the same
> version[1] as the latest that failed on alpha built on the security
> buildds for lenny.
Perhaps the alpha porters list should be contacted to reproduce the
problem?
--
by
On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 09:10:50PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> Source: xulrunner
> Version: 1.9.0.10-1
> Severity: serious
>
> xulrunner FTBFS on alpha due to a test suite failure:
>
> https://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?&pkg=xulrunner&ver=1.9.0.10-1&arch=alpha&stamp=1241646067&file=log
> https://b
Source: xulrunner
Version: 1.9.0.10-1
Severity: serious
xulrunner FTBFS on alpha due to a test suite failure:
https://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?&pkg=xulrunner&ver=1.9.0.10-1&arch=alpha&stamp=1241646067&file=log
https://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?&pkg=xulrunner&ver=1.9.0.10-1&arch=alpha&stamp=1
15 matches
Mail list logo
