On 06/19/2015 01:47 PM, James Cowgill wrote:
On Fri, 2015-06-19 at 02:13 +0200, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
[..]
So you are suggesting just simply upload again with all archs allowed?
I think so. You could wait for the ftpmasters to remove the mipsel
build and for it to migrate to testing if you
2015-06-19 14:24 GMT+02:00 Robin Gareus ro...@gareus.org:
On 06/19/2015 01:47 PM, James Cowgill wrote:
On Fri, 2015-06-19 at 02:13 +0200, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
[..]
So you are suggesting just simply upload again with all archs allowed?
I think so. You could wait for the ftpmasters to remove
On Fri, 2015-06-19 at 02:13 +0200, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
2015-06-18 22:55 GMT+02:00 James Cowgill james...@cowgill.org.uk:
It's not a concurrent compile issue - the failed build was non
-parallel.
I've run the build on a few of mipsel machines and it built fine every
time so I don't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 2015-06-18 15:43, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
a very wild and uneducated check reveals that the build is
parallelized (DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=parallel=5). could that somehow
be causing the problem?
x42-plugins not having parallel build enabled ...
2015-06-18 16:58 GMT+02:00 IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU)
umlae...@debian.org:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 2015-06-18 15:43, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
a very wild and uneducated check reveals that the build is
parallelized (DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=parallel=5). could that
On Thu, 2015-06-18 at 21:29 +0200, Robin Gareus wrote:
On 06/18/2015 03:43 PM, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
2015-06-18 13:26 GMT+02:00 umläute zmoel...@umlaeute.mur.at:
isn't that what #788231 is all about?
anyhow, #788210 is tagged as unreproducible, so it might be worth
digging somemore
On 06/18/2015 03:43 PM, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
2015-06-18 13:26 GMT+02:00 umläute zmoel...@umlaeute.mur.at:
On 2015-06-18 10:33, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
2015-06-18 9:09 GMT+02:00 IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU)
umlae...@debian.org:
On 06/18/2015 02:50 AM, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
2015-06-09 18:20
2015-06-18 22:55 GMT+02:00 James Cowgill james...@cowgill.org.uk:
Hi James,
It's not a concurrent compile issue - the failed build was non
-parallel.
I've run the build on a few of mipsel machines and it built fine every
time so I don't think it's a bug in gcc.
Also mips64el built it fine
On 06/18/2015 02:50 AM, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
2015-06-09 18:20 GMT+02:00 Jaromír Mikeš mira.mi...@gmail.com:
2015-06-09 15:01 GMT+02:00 Felipe Sateler fsate...@debian.org:
Note that you still need to ask for removal on mipsel of the package.
I would instead just ask for removal, and let x42
2015-06-09 18:20 GMT+02:00 Jaromír Mikeš mira.mi...@gmail.com:
2015-06-09 15:01 GMT+02:00 Felipe Sateler fsate...@debian.org:
Note that you still need to ask for removal on mipsel of the package.
I would instead just ask for removal, and let x42 build again when the
issue is sorted out.
I
2015-06-09 15:01 GMT+02:00 Felipe Sateler fsate...@debian.org:
Note that you still need to ask for removal on mipsel of the package.
I would instead just ask for removal, and let x42 build again when the
issue is sorted out.
I asked removal mipsel build
On 9 June 2015 at 08:42, mira-gu...@users.alioth.debian.org wrote:
The following commit has been merged in the master branch:
commit d63f06fe94be894c92b2b44abbb7c850f8cacfe1
Author: Jaromír Mikeš mira.mi...@seznam.cz
Date: Tue Jun 9 13:42:09 2015 +0200
Exclude mipsel from build.
Am Dienstag, den 09.06.2015, 10:01 -0300 schrieb Felipe Sateler: Package:
x42-plugins
-Architecture: any
+Architecture: amd64 arm64 armel armel armhf hurd-i386 i386 kfreebsd-amd64
kfreebsd-i386 mips powerpc ppc64el s390x sparc
Note that you still need to ask for removal on mipsel of the
On 9 June 2015 at 10:15, Fabian Greffrath fab...@debian.org wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 09.06.2015, 10:01 -0300 schrieb Felipe Sateler: Package:
x42-plugins
-Architecture: any
+Architecture: amd64 arm64 armel armel armhf hurd-i386 i386 kfreebsd-amd64
kfreebsd-i386 mips powerpc ppc64el s390x
14 matches
Mail list logo
