On 11/19/21 1:45 PM, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
Your message dated Fri, 19 Nov 2021 21:40:53 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#999376: fixed in python-gmpy2 2.1.0~b5-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #999376,
regarding python-gmpy2 ftbfs with Python 3.10
to be marked as done.
ase move to MPC 1.2.0?
>
> Case
>
Thanks Case! Matthias, Vincent, would one of you be willing to do a
non-maintainer upload once Case releases the new version? I would like to
but won't have computer access until October.
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 6:36 AM Martin Kelly
> wrote:
> &g
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 5:34 AM Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 7/30/20 3:42 AM, Martin Kelly wrote:
> > Apparently this bug is going to cause autoremoval from testing soon. Is
> the
> > severity really high enough for that?
>
> yes, because it blocks migration of mpfr4, used b
On Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 4:27 PM Martin Kelly wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 3:15 AM Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>
>> On 2020-07-14 09:48:18 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> > There is no 2.1.0 beta4, just a beta1, so I don't know what was
>> packaged in
>> > Februa
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 3:15 AM Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2020-07-14 09:48:18 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > There is no 2.1.0 beta4, just a beta1, so I don't know what was packaged
> in
> > February 2020. However the tests now fail with mpfr 4.1.0, seems to be
> > consistent across all
On 5/10/20 8:20 AM, Paul Gevers wrote:
Source: python-gmpy2
Version: 2.1.0~b4-1
X-Debbugs-CC: debian...@lists.debian.org
Severity: serious
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: regression
Dear maintainer(s),
Because your autopkgtest was part of the tests for glibc, I spotted that
the
On 4/13/20 2:25 PM, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
On Sat, Feb 08, 2020 at 11:13:20AM -0800, Martin Kelly wrote:
On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 10:55:23 -0800 Martin Kelly
wrote:
On 2/2/20 8:39 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
should we remove this package then? or do you want to generate a python3-gmpy?
I didn't
On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 10:55:23 -0800 Martin Kelly
wrote:
On 2/2/20 8:39 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> should we remove this package then? or do you want to generate a python3-gmpy?
>
I didn't realize, but it looks like this package actually does support
Python 3. I had assumed we wou
On 2/2/20 8:39 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
$ apt-cache rdepends python-gmpy
python-gmpy
Reverse Depends:
obfsproxy
python-tlslite-ng
python-sympy
python-gmpy-doc
Dependencies on obfsproxy and python-sympy documented with affects and
blocks. python-tlslite-ng has been removed
49c61013534f689144cd7ac10108fe64d1e444fb
Author: Martin Kelly <mar...@martingkelly.com>
Date: Sat Mar 11 14:08:13 2017 -0800
update changelog for release
diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog
index d5ce6b8..ff4d468 100644
--- a/debian/changelog
+++ b/debian/changelog
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+
On 10/30/2014 03:02 PM, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
Source: python-gmpy2
Version: 2.0.4-1
Severity: serious
Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully in the past)
python-gmpy2 failed to build on i386, armel, armhf, mips, mipsel,
kfreebsd-i386 and powerpc:
| File
That's fine. I'm a student and was waiting for the semester to end (in
about 3 weeks) to upload this. If your package works though, I have no
problem with the upload; might as well keep it.
Jakub Wilk wrote:
tags 642676 + patch
tags 642676 + pending
thanks
Dear maintainer,
I've prepared an
On 03/13/2011 01:33 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Source: python-gmpy
Version: 1.14-1
Severity: serious
Tags: wheezy sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: qa-ftbfs-20110313 qa-ftbfs
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build on
13 matches
Mail list logo
