On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 4:23 AM, Michael Hudson-Doyle
wrote:
> As you can see these are all -dev packages, so the Built-Using is bogus and
> should simply be dropped from the package.
>
> There are quite a few more packages that reference obsolete golang packages
> in
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 6:46 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 03:17:03PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 08:56:08AM +0200, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> > > >> Package: golang-github-gosexy-gettext-dev
>
> > > > vorlon, can we file for
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 03:17:03PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 08:56:08AM +0200, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> > >> Package: golang-github-gosexy-gettext-dev
> > > vorlon, can we file for removal of this package? It wasn’t touched since
> > > 2013 and has no rdepends.
>
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 08:56:08AM +0200, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> >> Package: golang-github-gosexy-gettext-dev
> > vorlon, can we file for removal of this package? It wasn’t touched since
> > 2013 and has no rdepends.
> Done: https://bugs.debian.org/862612
Thanks for filing, 100% agreed.
On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Michael Stapelberg
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Michael Hudson-Doyle <
> michael.hud...@canonical.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2 May 2017 at 19:23, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry for the late reply,
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Michael Hudson-Doyle <
michael.hud...@canonical.com> wrote:
> On 2 May 2017 at 19:23, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
>
>> Sorry for the late reply, I’ve been swamped.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Niels Thykier
>>
On 2 May 2017 at 19:23, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> Sorry for the late reply, I’ve been swamped.
>
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Niels Thykier wrote:
>
>> Michael Stapelberg:
>> > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Niels Thykier
Sorry for the late reply, I’ve been swamped.
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Michael Stapelberg:
> > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Niels Thykier
> wrote:
> >
> >> [...]
> >>>
> >>
> >> They seem to be arch:all packages. We
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:29:30 +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:00:20PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > FYI, that's the number of additional copies of source packages in
> > stretch, per source package:
> >
> > udd=> select source, count(*) from sources where
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:00:20PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> FYI, that's the number of additional copies of source packages in
> stretch, per source package:
>
> udd=> select source, count(*) from sources where release='stretch' and
> component='main' and extra_source_only group by source
On 21/04/17 at 08:28 +, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Michael Stapelberg:
> > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Niels Thykier wrote:
> >
> >> [...]
> >>>
> >>
> >> They seem to be arch:all packages. We cannot binNMU arch:all packages,
> >> only architecture dependent ones. :-/
>
Not a DD, sadly (yet!)
sent from my phone, please excuse brevity
On 21 Apr 2017 19:36, "Michael Stapelberg" wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Michael Hudson-Doyle <
> michael.hud...@canonical.com> wrote:
>
>> On 19 April 2017 at 20:55, Lucas Nussbaum
Michael Stapelberg:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Niels Thykier wrote:
>
>> [...]
>>>
>>
>> They seem to be arch:all packages. We cannot binNMU arch:all packages,
>> only architecture dependent ones. :-/
>>
>
> Okay. How do you suggest we rectify this issue instead,
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Michael Stapelberg:
> > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Michael Hudson-Doyle <
> > michael.hud...@canonical.com> wrote:
> >
> >> [...]
> >>> 0.7.0+ds-3), golang-protobuf-extensions (= 0+git20150513.fc2b8d3-4)
> >>> --
>
Michael Stapelberg:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Michael Hudson-Doyle <
> michael.hud...@canonical.com> wrote:
>
>> [...]
>>> 0.7.0+ds-3), golang-protobuf-extensions (= 0+git20150513.fc2b8d3-4)
>>> --
>>> Package: golang-github-gosexy-gettext-dev
>>> Built-Using: golang (= 2:1.6.1-2)
>>>
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Michael Hudson-Doyle <
michael.hud...@canonical.com> wrote:
> On 19 April 2017 at 20:55, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
>> On 19/04/17 at 09:05 +0200, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
>> > This is the third time an FTBFS report against this package (which
On 19 April 2017 at 20:55, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 19/04/17 at 09:05 +0200, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> > This is the third time an FTBFS report against this package (which was
> > removed from Debian) was submitted.
> >
> > The other two times were
> >
On 19/04/17 at 09:05 +0200, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> This is the third time an FTBFS report against this package (which was
> removed from Debian) was submitted.
>
> The other two times were
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=855926 and
>
18 matches
Mail list logo