On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 02:50:30PM +0200, Kilian Krause wrote:
> as i'd like to follow the discussion. Is there any reason
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2004/09/threads.htm isn't being
> updated anymore since yesterday?
master.debian.org ran out of diskspace. It will be fixed
soon, for
Hi,
as i'd like to follow the discussion. Is there any reason
http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2004/09/threads.htm isn't being
updated anymore since yesterday?
--
Best regards,
Kilian
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040910 02:10]:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 01:34:08AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > O.k. I was confused. But there is something I don't understand:
> > talksoup_0.0.20032712-3 is still in the archive and on the mirrors
> > even though there is a newer vers
> > > geneweb_4.09-25
>
> > WFM, but some warnings
>
> Same version? There's a new version of geneweb in testing/unstable now.
Though untested, I'm confident it will build. FTBFS was the reason for
using a new upstream "version" (indeed a CVS snapshot as upstream does
not want to release becau
Steve Langasek wrote:
[snip]
> > > kernel-image-2.4.26-hppa_2.4.26-6
> > > kernel-patch-2.4.25-mips_2.4.25-0.040415.1
> > > kernel-patch-2.4.25-powerpc_2.4.25-8
>
> > 2.4.27 is available, removal?
>
> Not until it's definite that we'll be using 2.4.27 for sarge.
2.4.26-hppa and 2.4.25-powerpc ar
On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 09:58:34PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 08:33:55PM +0200, Kilian Krause wrote:
> > ccs_0.cvs20040703-2
> hinted for removal
Successfully removed as of tomorrow.
> > gconf_1.0.9-5.1
> new version in sid which WFM, RM try to remove it, but can
On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 10:41:24PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > kinoplus_0.3.2-1
> new version in sid, waits for m68k (build yesterday)
Propagated with today's britney run.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 01:34:08AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> O.k. I was confused. But there is something I don't understand:
> talksoup_0.0.20032712-3 is still in the archive and on the mirrors
> even though there is a newer version 0.0.20040113-0.1 that is already
> migrated to sarge. Has
On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 04:13:31PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 10:41:24PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > > talksoup_0.0.20032712-3
> >
> > waits for removal
>
> Does it? I don't see any pending hints for this, or any emails
> requesting its removal from sarge. If
On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 10:41:24PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 08:33:55PM +0200, Kilian Krause wrote:
> More observations (still more to come):
> > Failed are:
> > gtkglextmm_1.0.1-2
> I think something about a needed binary NMU around this package
> anyone has a po
After the build logs are available some more comments
to bugs I couldn't reproduce:
On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 09:58:34PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 08:33:55PM +0200, Kilian Krause wrote:
> > firedns_0.9.9-1
>
> WFM
>
> > firestring_0.9.9-1
>
> WFM
both fail with "C
Hi,
logs are at:
http://home.bawue.de/~kk/sarge_ftbfs/
Not that this means it's all that exists in Sarge which would fail. The
large retest is still due, but at least this is a start to get the old
known problems sorted out (or so i hope).
--
Best regards,
Kilian
signature.asc
Description: D
On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 08:33:55PM +0200, Kilian Krause wrote:
More observations (still more to come):
> Failed are:
> gtkglextmm_1.0.1-2
I think something about a needed binary NMU around this package
anyone has a pointer?
> gtkhtml_1.0.4-5.1
new version in sid, but needs libtool update
(I tr
On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 08:33:55PM +0200, Kilian Krause wrote:
Some observations (more to follow):
(note, new != fixed and WFM == builds in a sid pbuilder)
> Failed are:
> advi_1.4.0-7
new version in sid, waiting for mips
> alogg_1.3.3-3
failed to build on arm in sid, but perhaps this needs on
Hi,
as i have helped producing the first FTBFS list, I've taken the failed
list from Bastian's mail
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2004/09/msg00023.html) and put
them into a sarge sbuild again. The result is:
- 80 failed
- 127 successful
- 31 removed from sarge
of 238 on the previous li
15 matches
Mail list logo