[Steve Langasek]
The s390 buildd maintainer presumes to mark all packages as
'Not-for-us' if he doesn't feel like building them for the arch,
without bothering to reach a consensus first together with the
maintainer, the ftp masters, or the maintainers of the P-a-s
overrides
Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Steve Langasek]
The s390 buildd maintainer presumes to mark all packages as
'Not-for-us' if he doesn't feel like building them for the arch,
without bothering to reach a consensus first together with the
maintainer, the ftp masters
Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Steve Langasek]
The s390 buildd maintainer presumes to mark all packages as
'Not-for-us' if he doesn't feel like building them for the arch,
without bothering to reach a consensus first together with the
maintainer
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 02:37:39PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Steve Langasek]
The s390 buildd maintainer presumes to mark all packages as
'Not-for-us' if he doesn't feel like building them for the arch,
without bothering to reach
Luk Claes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Similar the ia64 buildd admin, see #464932. Or is there anything I could
do myself about this?
Hmm, you do realise that lcd4linux is mentioned in P-a-s because it
includes sys/io.h, right? So this is not similar at all...
Oh, this is indeed news to me.
[Reinhard Tartler]
Can lcd4linux be pushed to testing despite of the 'missing' ia64 build
please, then?
It can't be pushed like that, and forcing it into testing with
architecture skew will increase the work load on the release masters
in the future when they need to clean up the mess shortly
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 09:09:41PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
Luk Claes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Similar the ia64 buildd admin, see #464932. Or is there anything I could
do myself about this?
Hmm, you do realise that lcd4linux is mentioned in P-a-s because it
includes sys/io.h,
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 08:17:04PM +0100, Hakan Ardo wrote:
Hi,
15/12 I released gcc-avr version 1:4.2.2-1, but acording to:
http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?pkg=gcc-avr
the s390 buildd has not yet tried to build it. What might be the problem?
The s390 buildd maintainer presumes
Hi,
15/12 I released gcc-avr version 1:4.2.2-1, but acording to:
http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?pkg=gcc-avr
the s390 buildd has not yet tried to build it. What might be the problem?
Thanx.
--
Håkan Ardö
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 08:17:04PM +0100, Hakan Ardo wrote:
Hi,
15/12 I released gcc-avr version 1:4.2.2-1, but acording to:
http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?pkg=gcc-avr
the s390 buildd has not yet tried to build it. What might be the problem?
http://buildd.debian.org/pkg.cgi?pkg=gcc
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 08:17:04PM +0100, Hakan Ardo wrote:
Hi,
15/12 I released gcc-avr version 1:4.2.2-1, but acording to:
http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?pkg=gcc-avr
the s390 buildd has not yet tried to build it. What might be the problem?
http://buildd.debian.org
On 05/02/08 at 11:43 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 08:17:04PM +0100, Hakan Ardo wrote:
Hi,
15/12 I released gcc-avr version 1:4.2.2-1, but acording to:
http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?pkg=gcc-avr
the s390 buildd has not yet tried to build it. What might
12 matches
Mail list logo
