Your message dated Thu, 3 Jun 2010 22:05:58 +0200
with message-id <20100603200558.ga11...@dogguy.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#483280: spamoracle_1.4-12(ia64/unstable): FTBFS: needs
ocamlopt
has caused the Debian Bug report #483280,
regarding spamoracle_1.4-12(ia64/unstable): FTBFS:
On 01-06-2008, George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 31 May 2008, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> --cut--
>
> Hi,
>
>> > I like that plan. Could you please add ara's debian/ to ocaml-maint repo,
>> > then I will remove debian/ from its "upstream" repo ?
>>
>> I think it should start t
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
--cut--
Hi,
> > I like that plan. Could you please add ara's debian/ to ocaml-maint repo,
> > then I will remove debian/ from its "upstream" repo ?
>
> I think it should start the other way around: just start doing an
> "upstream" release or ara
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:10:10PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> As latest developments shown ara is packaged just after its canonical example
> of spamoracle, whose source packages are not supposed to be built (I would
> say useless to even try to;-) on arches where ocamlopt is not available. F
On Wednesday 28 May 2008, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:28:04PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > What we are supposed to do with FTBFS like #483280, #483307, and similar
> > where ocamlopt binary is just not available on these particular
> > architectures, in that case IA-6
On Thursday 29 May 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
> Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:11:32 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> >> So, even assuming that the buildd have been invoked on the two packages
> >> for some weird buildd reason, I don't get why binary-arch was invoked.
> >
> > Be
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 04:38:06PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 03:43:56PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > The problem is either :
>
> Sven, are you reading posts before posting?
I did read the posts, but i admit i did not check the bug reports for
the other mail where
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 03:43:56PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> The problem is either :
Sven, are you reading posts before posting?
I've already stated in this thread that "ia64" is *NOT* in the Arch
field of neither spamoracle, nor ara. And it has been explained by
others why the buildds are tryi
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 03:28:01PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * George Danchev:
>
> > What we are supposed to do with FTBFS like #483280, #483307, and similar
> > where
> > ocamlopt binary is just not available on these particular architectures, in
> > that case IA-64 ? Should we just set t
* George Danchev:
> What we are supposed to do with FTBFS like #483280, #483307, and similar
> where
> ocamlopt binary is just not available on these particular architectures, in
> that case IA-64 ? Should we just set the severity to important as Luk Claes
> did for #483280 and wait for upstr
Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:11:32 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>
>> So, even assuming that the buildd have been invoked on the two packages
>> for some weird buildd reason, I don't get why binary-arch was invoked.
>
> Because that's what dpkg-buildpackage -B does, and w
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:28:04PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> Hello calmers ;-),
>
> What we are supposed to do with FTBFS like #483280, #483307, and similar
> where
> ocamlopt binary is just not available on these particular architectures, in
> that case IA-64 ? Should we just set the seve
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:11:32 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> So, even assuming that the buildd have been invoked on the two packages
> for some weird buildd reason, I don't get why binary-arch was invoked.
Because that's what dpkg-buildpackage -B does, and what buildds use.
> But even adm
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:40:27AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:12:47AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > What we are supposed to do with FTBFS like #483280, #483307, and similar
> > > where
> > > ocamlopt binary is just not available on these particular architec
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 00:40:27 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> If the package should not be built there it should be declared as such.
> If it can be built in some other way just make the package do that.
>
'This package should not be built on this architecture' is declared in
P-a-s, not in
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:12:47AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > What we are supposed to do with FTBFS like #483280, #483307, and similar
> > where
> > ocamlopt binary is just not available on these particular architectures, in
> > that case IA-64 ? Should we just set the severity to importan
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 22:28:04 +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> What we are supposed to do with FTBFS like #483280, #483307, and similar
> where
> ocamlopt binary is just not available on these particular architectures, in
> that case IA-64 ? Should we just set the severity to important as Luk
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:28:04PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> What we are supposed to do with FTBFS like #483280, #483307, and similar
> where
> ocamlopt binary is just not available on these particular architectures, in
> that case IA-64 ? Should we just set the severity to important as Luk
Hello calmers ;-),
What we are supposed to do with FTBFS like #483280, #483307, and similar where
ocamlopt binary is just not available on these particular architectures, in
that case IA-64 ? Should we just set the severity to important as Luk Claes
did for #483280 and wait for upstream to pro
Package: spamoracle
Version: 1.4-12
Severity: serious
There was an error while trying to autobuild your package:
> Automatic build of spamoracle_1.4-12 on caballero by sbuild/ia64 98
> Build started at 20080527-2359
[...]
> ** Using build dependencies supplied by package:
> Build-Depends: debhe
20 matches
Mail list logo
