Hello.
Could someone take a look at htop transition?
http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?excuse=htop
http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=htop
Both pages say that my package hasn't been built on m68k yet, but that's
not truth. It has been built on 30th of November:
http
Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could someone take a look at htop transition?
http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?excuse=htop
http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=htop
Both pages say that my package hasn't been built on m68k yet, but that's
not truth. It has
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 01:20:03PM +, Andreas Metzler wrote:
Could someone take a look at htop transition?
http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?excuse=htop
http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=htop
Both pages say that my package hasn't been built on m68k yet, but that's
http://buildd.debian.org/
How accurate is the information on buildd? I wonder because I am
using more recent versions than a few of those reported (at least
those I checked - like gcc)
http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?arch=sparcpkg=gcc
???
--
WC -Sx- Jones
http://insecurity.org/
* Chasecreek Systemhouse [Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:55:53 -0500]:
http://buildd.debian.org/
How accurate is the information on buildd? I wonder because I am
using more recent versions than a few of those reported (at least
those I checked - like gcc)
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 17:00:02 +0100, Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in buildd.d.o, you should specify a source package. try gcc-defaults,
and gcc-3.3. it seems that the 'gcc' source package existed for a very
short timeframe (?).
Yes, you are right. I forgot.
Or, better yet, an
hi,
* Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-12-15 18:05]:
Could someone take a look at htop transition?
http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?excuse=htop
http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=htop
Both pages say that my package hasn't been built on m68k yet, but that's
7 matches
Mail list logo
