On Fri, 2018-06-29 at 11:44 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
[...]
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Adam D. Barratt
> wrote:
>
> > > what is the reason why that package is not moving forward?
> >
> > I assume you're referring to the dpkg upload t
On Fri, 2018-06-29 at 10:20 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
[...]
> debian-riscv has been repeatedly asking for a single zero-impact
> line
> to be included in *one* file in *one* dpkg-related package which
> would
> allow riscv to stop being a NMU architecture and become part of
>
On Fri, 2016-09-30 at 19:04 +, Niels Thykier wrote:
> As for "porter qualification"
> =
>
> We got burned during the Jessie release, where a person answered the
> roll call for sparc and we kept sparc as a release architecture for
> Jessie. However, we ended up
On 2015-10-23 12:02, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
wanna-build does, yes, but at least the Release Team tend to use the
"wb"
wrapper tool which automatically works out the next free number on
each
architecture.
Ah, cool – so we have onl
On 2015-10-23 13:28, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
[...]
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
[...]
It's also not quite that simple, even working things out by hand - see
#599128
for example.
Hm, I’m still under the impression that the +bN suffix to the Debian
version of the package
On 2015-10-23 11:56, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
I didn't say once per arch. I said once per package, which is worse. I
normally
schedule binNMUs for several dozens packages. Multiply that by several
But you need to look the number up anyway?
On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 13:44 -0500, Patrick Baggett wrote:
I didn't see where GCC was dropping 32-bit sparc upstream in the
changelogs. This seems inaccurate since a 64-bit userland has negative
performance implications, and this is true for both Solaris and Linux
and not recommended by anyone.
Hi,
With the sound of the ever approaching freeze ringing loudly in our ears,
we're (somewhat belatedly) looking at finalising the list of release
architectures for the Wheezy release.
Comments on / additions and corrections to the content of
http://release.debian.org/wheezy/arch_qualify.html
On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 02:34 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
I'll make gcc-4.5 the default for (at least some) architectures within the
next
two weeks before more transitions start. GCC-4.5 is already used as the
default
compiler for almost any other distribution, so there shouldn't be many
On Sun, 2010-10-10 at 18:48 +0200, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
I think just a rebuild on another buildd could be enough. Could
anyone please try ?
I gave the build back. It got picked up by lebrun again, and failed in
the same way; I can't influence which buildd attempts a particular
package.
10 matches
Mail list logo
