On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 14.01.2017 um 18:02 schrieb Michael Biebl:
>
>> binutils_2.27.90.20170114-1. Building in stretch chroot though was
>> successful. So my observation is:
>>
>> binutils_2.27.90.20170114-1: fails
>> binutils_2.27.90.20170113-1: fails
>> binut
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 14.01.2017 um 18:02 schrieb Michael Biebl:
>
>> binutils_2.27.90.20170114-1. Building in stretch chroot though was
>> successful. So my observation is:
>>
>> binutils_2.27.90.20170114-1: fails
>> binutils_2.27.90.20170113-1: fails
>> binut
Am 14.01.2017 um 18:02 schrieb Michael Biebl:
> binutils_2.27.90.20170114-1. Building in stretch chroot though was
> successful. So my observation is:
>
> binutils_2.27.90.20170114-1: fails
> binutils_2.27.90.20170113-1: fails
> binutils_2.27.51.20161220-1: ok
>
> So it looks like a mips related
Source: systemd
Version: 232-10
Severity: serious
User: debian-m...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: mips-port
Hi mips porters,
the latest upload of systemd FTBFS on mips* [1]. Contrary to what the
buildd status page shows, mips64el is also affected. The build chroot on
mips64el did not have a /etc/mac
4 matches
Mail list logo