Bug#824591: transition: evolution-data-server 3.20

2016-05-21 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
On 20/05/16 20:21, Michael Biebl wrote: > Am 18.05.2016 um 16:45 schrieb Emilio Pozuelo Monfort: >> Control: tags -1 confirmed >> >> On 18/05/16 15:14, Michael Biebl wrote: >>> Am 17.05.2016 um 21:41 schrieb Michael Biebl: We used deb-o-matic to compile all reverse dependencies, and only

Bug#824591: transition: evolution-data-server 3.20

2016-05-20 Thread Michael Biebl
Am 18.05.2016 um 16:45 schrieb Emilio Pozuelo Monfort: > Control: tags -1 confirmed > > On 18/05/16 15:14, Michael Biebl wrote: >> Am 17.05.2016 um 21:41 schrieb Michael Biebl: >>> We used deb-o-matic to compile all reverse dependencies, and only >>> syncevolution failed to build. I was told that

Bug#824591: transition: evolution-data-server 3.20

2016-05-18 Thread Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
Control: tags -1 confirmed On 18/05/16 15:14, Michael Biebl wrote: > Am 17.05.2016 um 21:41 schrieb Michael Biebl: >> We used deb-o-matic to compile all reverse dependencies, and only >> syncevolution failed to build. I was told that a fix for that is in the >> works. > > Small update here:

Bug#824591: transition: evolution-data-server 3.20

2016-05-18 Thread Michael Biebl
Am 17.05.2016 um 21:41 schrieb Michael Biebl: > We used deb-o-matic to compile all reverse dependencies, and only > syncevolution failed to build. I was told that a fix for that is in the > works. Small update here: syncevolution currently FTBFS because of libical (#824426), once that bug is

Bug#824591: transition: evolution-data-server 3.20

2016-05-17 Thread Michael Biebl
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition Hi, with the libical transition [1] finished, we'd like to proceed with evolution-data-server 3.20. The auto-tracker at 3.20 looks fine. We used deb-o-matic to compile all reverse