Re: frama-c_20161101+silicon+dfsg-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable

2016-12-22 Thread Mehdi Dogguy
On 22/12/2016 10:04, Mehdi Dogguy wrote: > It needs (at least) to be recompiled against the latest frama-c before > being considered a candidate for migration. I've scheduled a binNMU on > amd64 to see if it builds. I'll investigate the breakage if it fails. > It built successfully on amd64. I've

Re: frama-c_20161101+silicon+dfsg-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable

2016-12-22 Thread Mehdi Dogguy
On 22/12/2016 08:02, Ralf Treinen wrote: > Hi Mehdi, > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 12:06:15AM +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote: >> Hi Ralf, >> >> On 21/12/2016 21:03, Ralf Treinen wrote: >>> how do you know that why will not be part of stretch ? >>> >> >> Why has been removed from testing since 2016-02-14

Re: frama-c_20161101+silicon+dfsg-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable

2016-12-22 Thread Ralf Treinen
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 12:06:15AM +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote: > Hi Ralf, > > On 21/12/2016 21:03, Ralf Treinen wrote: > > how do you know that why will not be part of stretch ? > > > > Why has been removed from testing since 2016-02-14 and why3 is now part > of Stretch. I have assumed the former