Hi Dmitry
>FAIL camldbm_1.0-2.dsc | PATCH
>FAIL courier_0.73.1-1.6.dsc
>FAIL freeradius_2.2.8+dfsg-0.1.dsc | PATCH
>FAIL ifmail_2.14tx8.10-22.dsc | PATCH
>FAIL nis_3.17-34.dsc | FTPFS pre-history debhelper
>FAIL ntop_5.0.1+dfsg1-2.1.dsc | FTBFS issues with rrd
>FAIL o
* Tobias Frost , 2016-07-13, 21:17:
You will have to file all the bugs manually, but I expect all the bugs
will follow a similar template.
You'll find mass-bug(1) from devscripts helpful on the filing part.
Unlikely. mass-bug(1) produces almost series of almost-identical mails
that can vary o
On 2016-07-13 01:35 +0300, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
> Some time ago I made gdbm_1.12-3 into experimental, and since it is
> incompatible with
> gdbm-1.8 (new soname, separated compat library) I rebuilt all reverse
> depedencies.
> Here is my report:
>
> FAIL camldbm_1.0-2.dsc | PATCH
>
Am Mittwoch, den 13.07.2016, 11:33 +0100 schrieb James Cowgill:
> You will have to file all the bugs manually, but I expect all the
> bugs will follow a similar template.
You'll find mass-bug(1) from devscripts helpful on the filing part.
>
> James
--
tobi
On Wed, 2016-07-13 at 07:35 +0100, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote:
> > We do not have automation
> > to rebuild packages and file FTBFS bugs, do we?
>
> Automated whole-archive rebuilds have been done (see e.g.
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=768691 ), but I
> don't know whether they
It looks as MBF, but I would like someone more experienced to give advice.
The transitions policy is here:
https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ReleaseTeam/Transitions
We do not have automation
to rebuild packages and file FTBFS bugs, do we?
Automated whole-archive rebuilds have been done (see e.g.
Hello!
Some time ago I made gdbm_1.12-3 into experimental, and since it is
incompatible with
gdbm-1.8 (new soname, separated compat library) I rebuilt all reverse
depedencies.
Here is my report:
FAIL camldbm_1.0-2.dsc | PATCH
FAIL courier_0.73.1-1.6.dsc
FAIL freeradius_
7 matches
Mail list logo