On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> Oops, sorry, I did notice your mail only after I uploaded the package with
> Peter's changes...
>
No problem, the FTBFS get fixed is good enough.
> * Aron Xu , 2012-05-06, 17:27:
>
>>> I've just been informed that it should have been a QA uploa
Oops, sorry, I did notice your mail only after I uploaded the package
with Peter's changes...
* Aron Xu , 2012-05-06, 17:27:
I've just been informed that it should have been a QA upload rather
than a NMU. New patch is attatched.
There's already ITA of this package,
Well, no, this is not true
Hi,
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 8:09 AM, peter green wrote:
> I've just been informed that it should have been a QA upload rather than a
> NMU. New patch is attatched.
>
>
There's already ITA of this package, and I am one of those people who
intend to take it (but currently busy, need to wait until J
I've just been informed that it should have been a QA upload rather than
a NMU. New patch is attatched.
diff -ur libxslt-1.1.26/debian/changelog libxslt-1.1.26.new/debian/changelog
--- libxslt-1.1.26/debian/changelog 2012-05-06 00:05:33.0 +
+++ libxslt-1.1.26.new/debian/changelog 2012-
tags 666333 +patch
thanks
This rebuild was done by building only architecture:any binary packages
(binary-arch target of debian/rules), and using a recent dpkg that uses the
build-arch target if available.
Specifically the reason this fails is that a wildcard target in
debian/rules matches
b
Source: libxslt
Version: 1.1.26-8
Severity: serious
Tags: wheezy sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: qa-ftbfs-20120330 qa-ftbfs qa-ftbfs-buildarch
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build on
amd64.
This rebuild was done by
6 matches
Mail list logo
