On Thu, 2013-02-07 at 19:29 +0100, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > Le 02/07/13 18:07, Michael Stapelberg a écrit : >> Update: the armhf build failed because about 100 testcases fail.
Hmm, presumably it worked at some point, given there are armhf binaries in unstable. :-( > > Given that the 3.0 version works — it passed all the clang tests and can > > compile non-trivial software on armhf and amd64 — can we just upload > > that? Or, as a last resort, re-introduce 3.0 in unstable, even if > > switching to an epoch is ugly? > > > Don't bother too much about the epoch, clang source package is going to > be removed anyway... Given that 3.1 appears never to have managed to build on several architectures in unstable (a regression in each case) and that I assume the intention would be to introduce 3.2 to unstable after the release, then if Sylvestre's not opposed reintroducing a fixed 3.0 to sid temporarily may be the sanest answer. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1360353593.24960.6.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org