Hi Andreas
On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 05:15, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> guile-gnutls was uploaded almost a week ago to sid, but the unstable
> autobuilders seem to ignore it.
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=guile-gnutls
>
> Is there anything I can do? The experiment
Good morning,
guile-gnutls was uploaded almost a week ago to sid, but the unstable
autobuilders seem to ignore it.
https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=guile-gnutls
Is there anything I can do? The experimental uploads were picked up
seamlessly.
cu Andreas
--
`What a good friend you
ease.debian.org/transitions/), apologising for previous
> > mistake and requesting an ACK for uploading ticcutils 0.4-4.
Using http://ftp-master.debian.org/cruft-report-daily.txt for inspiration.
> > 3) Once ACK'd, upload and keep an eye on autobuilders
> >
> > Co
gt; 2) Submit a bug to release.debian.org, requesting "transition tracking"
> (as per http://release.debian.org/transitions/), apologising for previous
> mistake and requesting an ACK for uploading ticcutils 0.4-4.
>
> 3) Once ACK'd, upload and keep an eye on autobuilders
ebian.org/transitions/), apologising for previous
mistake and requesting an ACK for uploading ticcutils 0.4-4.
3) Once ACK'd, upload and keep an eye on autobuilders
Correct?
Please honor mail-followup-to and Cc me on replies.
Thanks, Bye,
Joost
PS / Note to self: ucto 0.5.3-3, timblserver
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 11:20:07AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Michael Hanke writes:
> > since a while I try to figure out why a package is not being auto-built.
> > I was suggested to contact the "team that runs the non-free
> > autobuilders".
Michael Hanke writes:
> since a while I try to figure out why a package is not being auto-built.
> I was suggested to contact the "team that runs the non-free
> autobuilders". However, I have trouble finding that team. Whom could I
> contact -- neither google nor the wiki se
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Michael Hanke wrote:
> since a while I try to figure out why a package is not being auto-built.
> I was suggested to contact the "team that runs the non-free
> autobuilders". However, I have trouble finding that team. Whom could I
> contact
Hi,
since a while I try to figure out why a package is not being auto-built.
I was suggested to contact the "team that runs the non-free
autobuilders". However, I have trouble finding that team. Whom could I
contact -- neither google nor the wiki seems to know about them.
Thanks fo
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 12:10:28PM +0200, Francisco Moya wrote:
[...]
> > Debian Policy only knows as much as what we put in it. Therefore it
> > isn't almighty, and it *certainly* isn't a stick to beat people with, as
> > you're trying to do here. The fact that some insanity isn't in
> > policy do
FRANCISCO MOYA FERNANDEZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I already know that people do also build their own packages, thanks.
> You do not need to "rewire" the debian/rules in order to build
> zeroc-ice binary-arch packages but AFAIK in your PowerPC you cannot
> currently build zeroc-ice binary-all pa
knowledge, but
> > dpkg-buildpackage -B do not currently check them all. Target build must
> > satisfy Build-Depends-Indep (cf. Debian Policy 7.7) but dpkg-buildpackage
> > fail to enforce that for binary-arch builds.
>
> I'm not sure I understand what you're
FRANCISCO MOYA FERNANDEZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I already know that people do also build their own packages, thanks.
> You do not need to "rewire" the debian/rules in order to build
> zeroc-ice binary-arch packages but AFAIK in your PowerPC you cannot
> currently build zeroc-ice binary-all pa
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:51:08PM +0200, FRANCISCO MOYA FERNANDEZ wrote:
> I already know that people do also build their own packages, thanks. You do
> not need to "rewire" the debian/rules in order to build zeroc-ice binary-arch
> packages but AFAIK in your PowerPC you cannot currently build zer
ported on the Debian Policy.
Regards,
F. Moya
-Original Message-
From: Wouter Verhelst [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 15/08/2008 16:53
To: FRANCISCO MOYA FERNANDEZ
Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Some autobuilders wait for build-indep dependencies
On Mon, Aug 11,
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:29:53AM +0200, Francisco Moya wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've uploaded a new version of zeroc-ice packages which essentially
> falls back to target build-arch whenever the autobuilder tries the build
> target on architectures other than i386. I hope the Build-Options
> control fi
I can remove the kludge.
It seems to be working nicely on most autobuilders
( http://buildd.debian.org/zeroc-ice ) but there are some of them
(alpha, armel, and hppa) that seem to be waiting for Build-Depends-Indep
rather than just Build-Depends. I know the Debian policy states that
target build req
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 10:25:41AM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> We (the Debian Octave Group, pkg-octave.alioth.d.o) are running into a
> nasty problem regarding the Debian autobuilders. For some reason, one of
> the previous uploads of the octave2.9 package has wrongly manipu
We (the Debian Octave Group, pkg-octave.alioth.d.o) are running into a
nasty problem regarding the Debian autobuilders. For some reason, one of
the previous uploads of the octave2.9 package has wrongly manipulated the
octave-config alternative and have let it in the manual status pointing
to an
On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 05:35:03PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> The arm and m68k autobuilders are having real trouble keeping up; m68k
> has been well below 90% for weeks, and arm has been plummeting
> recently.
>
> Whats up?
I think the biggest problem on m68k has
The arm and m68k autobuilders are having real trouble keeping up; m68k
has been well below 90% for weeks, and arm has been plummeting
recently.
Whats up?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this problem report. It has been forwarded to the package maintainer(s)
and to other interested parties to accompany the original report.
Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
Arnaud Quette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 10:44:02AM +0100, Arnaud Quette wrote:
> PS: the upload is scheduled this afternoon (+6h max)
I see package is uploaded to incoming. Thanks :)
BTW, it probably requires manual intervention from buildd maintainers.
Cheers
Artur
--
[...] jestem wredna, żelazna małpa
Artur R. Czechowski wrote:
Hello
This bug causes autobuilders stop work. It is possible to fix it ASAP?
http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=lftp&ver=2.6.8-2&arch=hppa&stamp=1068852612&file=log&as=raw
http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=rrdcollect&ver=0.2.
Hello
This bug causes autobuilders stop work. It is possible to fix it ASAP?
http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=lftp&ver=2.6.8-2&arch=hppa&stamp=1068852612&file=log&as=raw
http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=rrdcollect&ver=0.2.1-5&arch=mipsel&
On Sat, 2002-08-24 at 15:34, James A. Treacy wrote:
> Do entire dependency chains need to be specified for Build-Depends?
No, absolutely not - only the packages the program needs directly. That
is, all Depends: are automatically pulled in.
--
Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Th
All the autobuilders failed in building gramps 0.8.0-3 giving the
following:
Checking for source dependency conflicts...
/usr/bin/sudo /usr/bin/apt-get --purge $CHROOT_OPTIONS -q -y install
debhelper python-dev python-xml python-gnome python-glade docbook-utils
scrollkeeper gettext
Reading
>> Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There is more out there than just i386 system. I would love to see
> you attach a 100 gigabyte disk to a m68k system.
Looking at several m68k's here, they have SCSI-2 connectors. Wouldn't
it be feasible to connect an IDE-RAID system to them?
Paul Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> If this is indicative, a complete debian build would use 24GB, and I
> would say that a cache of a few GB would be a win (given not all
> packages get built as frequently).
>
> Also, a build farm could be optimized to usually build the sam
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 02 April 2002 06:17, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 03:48:49AM +0200, Paul Russell wrote:
> > Looking at my testing PPC box with grep-available, we have only about
> > 8GB total Installed-Size. So I would expect a ccache of 1G
On Tue, 2 Apr 2002 21:35, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-04-02 at 11:17, Russell Coker wrote:
> > So we firstly need to find a real slow arch which also supports 4 new
> > large IDE disks (remember that machines 3 years old tend not to have good
> > support for >32G drives).
>
> That's pr
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 03:38:18PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> Perhaps architectures which are slow enough to really benefit would still
> benefit if they had to go out over the network to a cache? Certainly if
> there was other storage on the same LAN, maybe even farther.
Unfortunately the ar
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 02:35:06PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> That's primarily a BIOS problem, right? Does it matter for Linux?
Actually, current kernels have a problem with current 160G drives.
Mainstream 48bit ide support is expected Real Soon Now. :)
--
Mike Stone
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 03:10:14PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> The ones that could use it, are the ones that can't take it :) I seriously
> doubt the m68k can hold 4 disks. I'm pretty sure the m68k's run scsi too.
Perhaps architectures which are slow enough to really benefit would still
benefit i
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 02:30:03PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > > That's all of three 100GB IDE disks running in RAID 0. Four disks if for
> > > some reason you want redundancy on your cache.
> >
> > Surely you don't presume that a) All of our aut
Previously Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> That's primarily a BIOS problem, right? Does it matter for Linux?
There is more out there than just i386 system. I would love to see
you attach a 100 gigabyte disk to a m68k system.
Wichert.
--
On Tue, 2002-04-02 at 11:17, Russell Coker wrote:
> So we firstly need to find a real slow arch which also supports 4 new large
> IDE disks (remember that machines 3 years old tend not to have good support
> for >32G drives).
That's primarily a BIOS problem, right? Does it matter for Linux?
>
> > That's all of three 100GB IDE disks running in RAID 0. Four disks if for
> > some reason you want redundancy on your cache.
>
> Surely you don't presume that a) All of our autobuilders have enough
> bays for 3 IDE disks and b) Can take IDE at all (vore, the s
On Tue, 2 Apr 2002 10:17, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-04-01 at 23:17, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > Looking at my testing PPC box with grep-available, we have only about
> > > 8GB total Installed-Size.
> >
> > glibc packages total installed size is only a few dozen megs. However,
> > the so
> That's all of three 100GB IDE disks running in RAID 0. Four disks if for
> some reason you want redundancy on your cache.
Surely you don't presume that a) All of our autobuilders have enough
bays for 3 IDE disks and b) Can take IDE at all (vore, the sparc buildd,
doesn
On Mon, 2002-04-01 at 23:17, Ben Collins wrote:
> > Looking at my testing PPC box with grep-available, we have only about
> > 8GB total Installed-Size.
>
> glibc packages total installed size is only a few dozen megs. However,
> the source builds takes up about 600megs. XFree86, about 1.6gigs.
g
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 03:48:49AM +0200, Paul Russell wrote:
> On Monday 01 April 2002 18:23, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> > > The same package: almost never
> > > the same file: often, with every new compile.
> > >
> > > Just take into acco
On Monday 01 April 2002 18:23, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> > The same package: almost never
> > the same file: often, with every new compile.
> >
> > Just take into account that a package contains 50 .c files that need
> > to be compiled. An
On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 10:00:07PM +1000, Steve Kowalik wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 07:03:41PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa uttered:
> > >
> > > call ``madison package'' on auric.
> >
> > It needs a shell access. I don't always have shell access to auric.
> >
> Use packages.debian.org search page,
On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 07:03:41PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa uttered:
> >
> > call ``madison package'' on auric.
>
> It needs a shell access. I don't always have shell access to auric.
>
Use packages.debian.org search page, that'll tell you what is installed.
(Yes, it's somewhat like madison.)
--
Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit
I was feeling really unwell when I have sent the original mail,
but I will justify what I have written.
> > I am getting more of these bug reports from autobuilders, and I would like
> > to suggest this.
>
> Umh. Whe
Junichi Uekawa wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am getting more of these bug reports from autobuilders, and I would like
> to suggest this.
Umh. When the auto-builders came up thiese kind of bug reports were not
appreciated and the porters didn't report them, they (espcially Roman, m
Hi,
I am getting more of these bug reports from autobuilders, and I would like
to suggest this.
Many just send me a bug log, and that doesn't really tell me much,
because it lacks the following information :
o what kind of things may be broken for the arch?
o what version of gcc it is ru
On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 09:50:14AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> If they don't and rather continue to track unstable, then how
> will new optional package enter testing before the `optional'
> freeze? They may get built against library versions that aren't
> in woody and thus never allowed to
Has base actually frozen? Is there a space on www.debian.org to
track this? Or which mailing list?
More importantly, will autobuilders use it?
If they don't and rather continue to track unstable, then how
will new optional package enter testing before the `optional'
freeze? Th
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000, Josh Huber wrote:
> built. Should I just do it myself? I also know that there's no
> (automated :) autobuilder for Alpha, so I understand that there might
> be some delay for alpha.
In Alpha's case, I'm normally very "on-top" of the builds, but am going to
be slow for the
51 matches
Mail list logo
