On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 02:55:08PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> I haven't had much luck with bug requests for ftp.debian.org -- what could I
> do to have the octave2.0 binaries for the arm architecture removed from
> testing and unstable?
File a bug against ftp.debian.org, with rationale. Tho
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 01:06:47PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> Dear arm buildd-administrator,
>
> unison: Build-Depends uninstallable, should be Dep-Wait
The version in sid should close this problem...
There was a missing build deps long time ago, but since there was no new
build. Once
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 02:55:08PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 12:45:31PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 06:35:40AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> > > I haven't seen your bug report in detail (having delivery issues with
> > > @debian.org m
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 12:45:31PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 06:35:40AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> > I haven't seen your bug report in detail (having delivery issues with
> > @debian.org mail, some has been days late), but octave2.0 is unlikely to
> > change:
>
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 06:35:40AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> I haven't seen your bug report in detail (having delivery issues with
> @debian.org mail, some has been days late), but octave2.0 is unlikely to
> change:
> -- code development was frozen / stopped years ago, all development went
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 03:01:02PM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> > > As long as you're working on arm build issues, this seems like as good
> > > a time as any to mention that xerces23 and xerces24 are still in a
> > > false state of Dep-Wait even though the dependency problem that got
> >
> > As long as you're working on arm build issues, this seems like as good
> > a time as any to mention that xerces23 and xerces24 are still in a
> > false state of Dep-Wait even though the dependency problem that got
> > them there has been resolved for weeks. I've sent multiple polite a
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 10:37:05AM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> As long as you're working on arm build issues, this seems like as good
> a time as any to mention that xerces23 and xerces24 are still in a
> false state of Dep-Wait even though the dependency problem that got
> them there has been
As long as you're working on arm build issues, this seems like as good
a time as any to mention that xerces23 and xerces24 are still in a
false state of Dep-Wait even though the dependency problem that got
them there has been resolved for weeks. I've sent multiple polite and
gentle messages to [E
Dnia 14-09-2004, wto o godzinie 13:06 +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar
napisał(a):
> Dear arm buildd-administrator,
>
> Based on [1], I went by a few builds on arm that are in state
> 'Building' for a longer time, and didn't yet move to another state. I
> process them on the order of [1], since that i
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> ...
> redland: Unsatisfyable build-depends, should be Dep-Wait librasqal0-dev >=
> 0.9.2
librasqal0-dev_0.9.2-1_arm.deb has been in the archive since August 15th
(6 days after it tried and failed to build redland) and should have been
buildabl
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 01:06:47PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> gmfsk: configure failure, should be Failed, #271651 filed
I would've guessed this is an fftw bug, but I have absolutely no way to
prove it either way. Can someone help me out?
Maybe a rebuild of gmfsk with the latest fftw wo
Jeroen,
I haven't seen your bug report in detail (having delivery issues with
@debian.org mail, some has been days late), but octave2.0 is unlikely to
change:
-- code development was frozen / stopped years ago, all development went
into octave2.1
-- octave2.0 is there for "legacy" code
-- it d
(Hm, you shouldn't have cc'ed all...)
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 06:35:40AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> Jeroen,
>
> I haven't seen your bug report in detail (having delivery issues with
> @debian.org mail, some has been days late), but octave2.0 is unlikely to
> change:
>
> -- code developmen
On Tuesday 14 September 2004 13:06, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
Thanks for your work.
> sear: Unsatisfyable build-depends, should be Dep-Wait
libmercator-0.2-dev >= 0.2.1
libmercator-0.2-dev >= 0.2.1 was built and uploaded for arm into the
archive some weeks ago (its in sarge already too)
M
Dear arm buildd-administrator,
Based on [1], I went by a few builds on arm that are in state
'Building' for a longer time, and didn't yet move to another state. I
process them on the order of [1], since that is a release-oriented order
of missing-builds-that-hurt-sarge-propagation-most-first.
All
16 matches
Mail list logo
