Paul Slootman writes:
> On Thu 13 May 2010, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> >
>> > tar: pilot-qof-0.2.1/m4: time stamp 2010-05-12 10:05:18 is 4472.963421 s
>> > in the future
>> > tar: pilot-qof-0.2.1/po/pilot-qof.pot: time stamp 2010-05-12 10:01:48 is
>> > 4262.962891 s in the future
>>
>> Is
On Thu 13 May 2010, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >
> > tar: pilot-qof-0.2.1/m4: time stamp 2010-05-12 10:05:18 is 4472.963421 s in
> > the future
> > tar: pilot-qof-0.2.1/po/pilot-qof.pot: time stamp 2010-05-12 10:01:48 is
> > 4262.962891 s in the future
>
> Is that really a wrong clock or just
On Thu, 13 May 2010 03:18:57 +0200
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Neil Williams writes:
>
> > * Source package: pilot-qof
> > * Version: 0.2.1-1
> > * Architecture: alpha
> > * State: failed
> > * Suite: unstable
> > * Builder: goetz.debian.org
> > * Build log:
> > https://buildd.debian.o
Neil Williams writes:
> * Source package: pilot-qof
> * Version: 0.2.1-1
> * Architecture: alpha
> * State: failed
> * Suite: unstable
> * Builder: goetz.debian.org
> * Build log:
> https://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=pilot-qof&arch=alpha&ver=0.2.1-1&stamp=1273661056&file=log
>
>
> tar
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 12:06:50 +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> Will affected packages be rescheduled once the clock is fixed?
>
debian-al...@ldo is not the contact address for the buildd admins.
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
* Source package: pilot-qof
* Version: 0.2.1-1
* Architecture: alpha
* State: failed
* Suite: unstable
* Builder: goetz.debian.org
* Build log:
https://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=pilot-qof&arch=alpha&ver=0.2.1-1&stamp=1273661056&file=log
tar: pilot-qof-0.2.1/m4: time stamp 2010-05-12
6 matches
Mail list logo