On 17/11/10 16:43, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
> This is now fixed in 1.0.0.b-2. So please sign off that one.
signoff x86_64
--
Andrea Scarpino
Arch Linux Developer
On 11/17/2010 08:43 AM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 18:40:27 +0100, Pierre Schmitz
wrote:
Side note: make test does no longer pass with this version. It might be
just the test itself that is broken though (tested different arches and
also on Ubuntu). But I need to look into this
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 7:43 AM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 18:40:27 +0100, Pierre Schmitz
> wrote:
>> Side note: make test does no longer pass with this version. It might be
>> just the test itself that is broken though (tested different arches and
>> also on Ubuntu). But I need
Am 17.11.2010 07:43, schrieb Pierre Schmitz:
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 18:40:27 +0100, Pierre Schmitz
> wrote:
>> Side note: make test does no longer pass with this version. It might be
>> just the test itself that is broken though (tested different arches and
>> also on Ubuntu). But I need to look in
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 20:27:04 +0100
Andreas Radke wrote:
> New upstream release. Please signoff.
>
> Anybody ever heard of the mentioned "libpipeline"? It seems so far it
> hasn't been packaged in any form for Arch. I'll have to bring this in
> when 2.6.0 comes out.
Signoff x86_64
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 20:11:18 +0100
Andreas Radke wrote:
> A quick fix release is out. Please signoff version 2.5.9!
>
> -Andy
Works, too. Signoff x86_64
A quick fix release is out. Please signoff version 2.5.9!
-Andy
About this release
--
This is a quick release to correct errors in man-db 2.5.8: some systems
encountered test failures due to excessive sensitivity to directory
ordering, and './configure --disable-nls' was broken
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Andreas Radke wrote:
> A quick fix release is out. Please signoff version 2.5.9!
>
> -Andy
>
>
>
> About this release
> --
>
> This is a quick release to correct errors in man-db 2.5.8: some systems
> encountered test failures due to excessive sensi
Hi,
I was thinking of doing a fairly large rebuild of packages in [core] for
the following reasons:
- The toolchain is quite good at the moment and many packages have not
been built in a long time so could use a refresher build to take
advantage of what the newer toolchain offers (~15 packa
Am Thu, 18 Nov 2010 14:16:34 +1000
schrieb "Allan McRae" :
> Hi,
>
> I was thinking of doing a fairly large rebuild of packages in [core]
> for the following reasons:
>
> - The toolchain is quite good at the moment and many packages have
> not been built in a long time so could use a refresher
On 18/11/10 15:52, Andreas Radke wrote:
Am Thu, 18 Nov 2010 14:16:34 +1000
schrieb "Allan McRae":
Hi,
I was thinking of doing a fairly large rebuild of packages in [core]
for the following reasons:
- The toolchain is quite good at the moment and many packages have
not been built in a long
Am 18.11.2010 06:52, schrieb Andreas Radke:
Am Thu, 18 Nov 2010 14:16:34 +1000
schrieb "Allan McRae":
Hi,
I was thinking of doing a fairly large rebuild of packages in [core]
for the following reasons:
- The toolchain is quite good at the moment and many packages have
not been built in a l
On Thursday 18 November 2010 07:20:54 Daniel Isenmann wrote:
> That's right, I made such a rebuild script. But I'm not really sure if I
> have it any longer. Have to check it at home. It was a hackish bash
> script which increased the pkgrel variable and rebuild the package,
> that's all.
We have t
13 matches
Mail list logo
