block 689093 by 696390
thanks
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:37:42AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 01:16:16PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
This test (which I ran against current unstable) behaves *much* better.
Out of 413 packages, 402 built cleanly. Two packages (eucalyptus
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 12:10:27PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
I tried moving all the headers to
/usr/include/$(DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH)/openssl/ and rebuilding everything in
Ubuntu raring that build-depends on libssl-dev. So far I've had 67
failures out of 428 attempts (there are still a few in
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 01:16:16PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
This test (which I ran against current unstable) behaves *much* better.
Out of 413 packages, 402 built cleanly. Two packages (eucalyptus and
freebsd-utils) were skipped because my test was on i386 and they don't
build there.
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 11:37:25AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 03:13:34AM +0200, Francois Gouget wrote:
My understanding is that as long as there are no
architecture-dependent headers there is no obstacle (i.e. no
toolchain issue) to tagging the development package as
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 03:13:34AM +0200, Francois Gouget wrote:
My understanding is that as long as there are no architecture-dependent
headers there is no obstacle (i.e. no toolchain issue) to tagging the
development package as 'Multi-Arch: same'.
The header files are arch specific.
Package: libssl-dev
Version: 1.0.1c-4
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
The amd64 version conflicts with the i386 one which makes it impossible to
install both. As a result the /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libssl.so and
libcrypto.so symbolic links are missing so that developping 32bit applications
6 matches
Mail list logo
