On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 09:09:51PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> This is only a problem with the old version of sbuild in use on the
> buildds. The version in unstable has used the apt inside the chroot
> for well over two years. The patches to enable it do exist in the GIT
> repo, and could be tri
Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Pierre Habouzit a écrit :
>> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 05:18:58PM +, Julien BLACHE wrote:
>>> Hideki Yamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>> Agreed. OTOH couldn't the amd64 buildd's also act as i386 buildd's ? I
>> think that _most_ of the packages
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 09:35:08PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> The main problem I see is that sbuild uses apt from the host
> installation, which means the host and the chroot should have the same
> architecture.
Two solutions present themselves:
* -o APT::Architecture=i386 (if that works)
Pierre Habouzit a écrit :
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 05:18:58PM +, Julien BLACHE wrote:
>> Hideki Yamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Umm, if build daemon is down, it is a problem, I think.
>>> As i386 it is not a serious, but it is just a problem.
>> It is a problem, and it is serious. I
Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> Several DSA's have been stalled the past months because of missing i386
> builds. It would be great if we can reduce that.
i386 d-i is also broken due to missing i386 builds now. (partman-*
version skew)
--
see shy jo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wit
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 05:18:58PM +, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Hideki Yamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Umm, if build daemon is down, it is a problem, I think.
> > As i386 it is not a serious, but it is just a problem.
>
> It is a problem, and it is serious. It's stalling the testing
>
Hideki Yamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Umm, if build daemon is down, it is a problem, I think.
> As i386 it is not a serious, but it is just a problem.
It is a problem, and it is serious. It's stalling the testing
transition already due to missing builds.
i386 is no longer a special case a
Quoting Thijs Kinkhorst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Of course i386 machines are commonly available, but the suggested procedure
> of
> making uploads by hand is undesirable (especially for stable):
>
> a) it increases chances of dirty/broken build environments;
> b) it costs time;
> c) some packages
Hi,
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 14:27:42 +0100
Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems the build daemon is down. However according to [1] it should
> not be a problem, you should build and upload the packages manually:
But I'm not a DD and not sylpheed package maintainer... ;-)
Umm, if bu
On Wednesday 2 January 2008 14:27, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> It seems the build daemon is down. However according to [1] it should
>
> not be a problem, you should build and upload the packages manually:
> | Waiver (for redundancy, since there isn't any): Most developers upload
> | for i386; buildd d
Hideki Yamane a écrit :
> Hi list,
>
> I'm waiting sylpheed 2.4.8-1 package (i386) from 25th December, all
> architectures except i386 are built completed. sylpheed is still in
> build queue for one week.
> http://unstable.buildd.net/buildd/i386_Needs-Build_queueorder.html
>
> build percent
Hi list,
I'm waiting sylpheed 2.4.8-1 package (i386) from 25th December, all
architectures except i386 are built completed. sylpheed is still in
build queue for one week.
http://unstable.buildd.net/buildd/i386_Needs-Build_queueorder.html
build percentage for i386 has decreased.
http://buil
12 matches
Mail list logo
