On 25 April 2015 at 10:56, Julien Cristau wrote:
> Why does the symbols file include private symbols (i.e. why are
> supposedly private symbols being exported by the library in the first
> place)?
I don't know. I did ask upstream about it in their bug #1565 [1] and
got the following response:
I
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 14:02:29 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> On 16-04-15 07:31, Graham Inggs wrote:
> > If you uploaded 2.3.4-6.2 now, could it cause any harm? At least this
> > will get the package built and Release Team can still decide whether
> > to grant the unblock request or not.
>
> I up
On 16-04-15 07:31, Graham Inggs wrote:
> If you uploaded 2.3.4-6.2 now, could it cause any harm? At least this
> will get the package built and Release Team can still decide whether
> to grant the unblock request or not.
I uploaded the package 2.3.4-8 (I couldn't call it a NMU ;) about an
hour ag
retitle 782381 pre-approval: unblock: motif/2.3.4-6.2
thanks
On 16/04/2015 07:46, Michael Gilbert wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 1:31 AM, Graham Inggs wrote:
If you uploaded 2.3.4-6.2 now, could it cause any harm? At least this
will get the package built and Release Team can still decide whet
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 1:31 AM, Graham Inggs wrote:
> If you uploaded 2.3.4-6.2 now, could it cause any harm? At least this
> will get the package built and Release Team can still decide whether
> to grant the unblock request or not.
If you can talk the release team into pre approving an unblock
Hi Michael
On 16 April 2015 at 02:29, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> Upstream intends that symbol to be private, so it should be unused in
> other packages. But for confidence that it doesn't lead to breakage,
> someone should build test the reverse dependencies, which is a large
> number. Graham can
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> All the builds of motif failed [1] due to a missing symbol. What are we
> going to do? I saw that Graham already choose to just remove the symbol
> from the Ubuntu package. I believe that this is really a no-no,
> especially without
On 15 April 2015 at 21:12, Paul Gevers wrote:
> I saw that Graham already choose to just remove the symbol
> from the Ubuntu package. I believe that this is really a no-no,
> especially without careful investigation if other packages are using
> this symbol and this late in the release process.
Hi all,
All the builds of motif failed [1] due to a missing symbol. What are we
going to do? I saw that Graham already choose to just remove the symbol
from the Ubuntu package. I believe that this is really a no-no,
especially without careful investigation if other packages are using
this symbol a
9 matches
Mail list logo
