Your message dated Thu, 31 Jul 2014 23:03:28 +0200 with message-id <[email protected]> and subject line Bug#724824: fixed in numactl 2.0.9-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #724824, regarding Please support mips64(el) and mipsn32(el) to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected] immediately.) -- 724824: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=724824 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---Package: numactl I am working on mips64el port. I can confirm that this package build successfully on mips64el platform. And I guess that it can build on mips64, mipsn32, mipsn32el. Please enable these 4 architecture in debian/control. Is it a good idea to set this package as "any" ? -- YunQiang Su
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---Source: numactl Source-Version: 2.0.9-1 Probably an oversight that this bug wasn't closed by the usual means of mentioning (Closes: #724824) in debian/changelog. For completeness sake, the changelog for 2.0.9-1 was: numactl (2.0.9-1) unstable; urgency=low * Upgrade to 2.0.9 * Upgrade standards to 3.9.5 (no change) * Add 001_no_numa.patch to avoid crash when no NUMA present (Closes: #712692) -- Ian Wienand <[email protected]> Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:34:13 +1000 Best regards Uwe
--- End Message ---
