On Monday 22 August 2011 19:32:28 Julien Cristau wrote:
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 13:50:19 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 13:20:59 +0200, Clara Gnos wrote:
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu
On Sunday 21 August 2011 13:20:59 Clara Gnos wrote:
nmu linux-2.6_3.0.0-2 . ALL . -m
'Rebuild to remove (rest|save)(32|64\|)(fpr|gpr) symbols.'
[...]
nmu eglibc_2.13-16 . ALL . -m
'Rebuild to remove (rest|save)(32|64\|)(fpr|gpr) symbols.'
There seem to be some false positives.
nmu wine
On Friday 19 August 2011 17:05:35 Clara Gnos wrote:
Yes, should also have checked that. Maybe we can replace wxInclude with a
newer version (it seems to be an external tool embedded in the rlvm build
system). Or test what was changed since rlvm 0.10-1... but wxInclude.cpp
wasn't changed at all
On Saturday 20 August 2011 23:10:25 Clara Gnos wrote:
On Friday 19 August 2011 17:05:35 Clara Gnos wrote:
Yes, should also have checked that. Maybe we can replace wxInclude with
a
newer version (it seems to be an external tool embedded in the rlvm
build
system). Or test what was changed
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: rm
Please remove tulip from testing. Around a half year, different RC bugs
(FTBFS; #556508, #615687, #616282, #638169) are open and nothing seems to be
happen there. It is also heavily outdated.
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: rm
Please remove deps from testing. It is the only package (libdeps-renderer-
tulip-perl) which has a dependency on tulip and therefore also prevents the
transition of glew.
It has a low popcount
On Thursday 18 August 2011 08:30:43 Julien Cristau wrote:
Package: rlvm
Version: 0.12-3
Severity: serious
Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully in the
past)
See the build log at
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=rlvmarch=powerpcver=0.12-3;
On Friday 19 August 2011 15:45:46 Sven Eckelmann wrote:
On Friday 19 August 2011 15:44:17 Clara Gnos wrote:
On Thursday 18 August 2011 08:30:43 Julien Cristau wrote:
Package: rlvm
Version: 0.12-3
Severity: serious
Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully
On Wednesday 17 August 2011 08:49:59 Julien Cristau wrote:
A couple failures so far that will need a sourceful upload or removal...
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 21:33:51 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
nmu sofa-framework_1.0~beta4-5.1 . ALL . -m 'Rebuild against
libglew1.6'
Obsolete
Package: src:tulip
Version: 1.0~beta4-5.1
Severity: serious
buildd dependency instability problem output:
tulip (= 3.1.2-2.3) build-depends on one of:
- libqt4-opengl-dev (= 4:4.7.3-7)
tulip (= 3.1.2-2.3) build-depends on one of:
- libgl1-mesa-swx11-dev (= 7.10.3-4)
libqt4-opengl-dev (=
Package: sofa-framework
Version: 1.0~beta4-5.1
Severity: serious
buildd dependency instability problem output:
sofa-framework (= 1.0~beta4-5.1) build-depends on missing:
- libqwt5-qt4-dev
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe.
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: wxmupen64plus
Version : 0.1
Upstream Author : Marianne Gagnon auria...@gmail.com
* URL : https://bitbucket.org/auria/wxmupen64plus/wiki/Home
* License : GPL2+... see
Package: linux-2.6
Severity: wishlist
To use the name linux-2.6 for the source package is quite misleading. Maybe it
is better to drop this -2.6 appendix and use the name linux as Linus Torvalds
does since the release of 3.0 [1].
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/7/20/371
--- System
Package: ftp.debian.org
Severity: normal
I tried to download mupen64plus 1.99.4+2 from unstable. It is uploaded
according to
http://packages.qa.debian.org/m/mupen64plus/news/20110724T130734Z.html
Only an older version is available, but packages like libmupen64plus2
(which seems to be uploaded
reopen 635325
thanks
On Monday 25 July 2011 09:58:37 Torsten Werner wrote:
Am 25.07.2011 09:37, schrieb Clara Gnos:
I tried to download mupen64plus 1.99.4+2 from unstable. It is uploaded
according to
http://packages.qa.debian.org/m/mupen64plus/news/20110724T130734Z.html
Only an older
On Monday 25 July 2011 10:15:55 Torsten Werner wrote:
Okay, the mupen64plus-dbg is no longer built. You could have mentioned
that. Please wait until this is sorted out through cruft-report. The
behaviour is fully correct and it is not a bug.
I didn't know that it is not build anymore. I wanted
16 matches
Mail list logo
