Your message dated Wed, 25 Mar 2015 05:49:40 +0000
with message-id <1427262580.26766.35.ca...@adam-barratt.org.uk>
and subject line Re: Bug#781062: unblock: cross-binutils/0.22
has caused the Debian Bug report #781062,
regarding unblock: cross-binutils/0.22
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
781062: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=781062
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian....@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock package cross-binutils (source)
Binaries:
binutils-aarch64-linux-gnu
binutils-arm-linux-gnueabi
binutils-arm-linux-gnueabihf
binutils-i586-linux-gnu
binutils-mips-linux-gnu
binutils-mips64el-linux-gnuabi64
binutils-mipsel-linux-gnu
binutils-powerpc-linux-gnu
binutils-powerpc64le-linux-gnu
binutils-x86-64-linux-gnu
The cross-binutils package versions should match the binutils versions
so that cross-building and native building are consistent.
This was the case in Jessie until binutils 2.25-5 migrated to testing
(on 2015-03-06) replacing 2.24.90.20141023-1
As this has been deemed suitable for migration we should migrate the
corresponding cross- builds of binutils too. Hmm, I see that the
versions in unstable built by cross-binutils 0.22 are 2.25-4 (not
2.25-5), which have been there for 2 months (uploaded 2015-01-18) and
thus could be considered to be quite well-tested.
But there is one important-looking fix in 2.25-5 (#772958), so I
guess an upload of cross-binutils 0.23, building binutils 2.25-5 would
be better?
unblock cross-binutils/0.22
unblock binutils-aarch64-linux-gnu/2.25-4
unblock binutils-arm-linux-gnueabi/2.25-4
unblock binutils-arm-linux-gnueabihf/2.25-4
unblock binutils-i586-linux-gnu/2.25-4
unblock binutils-mips-linux-gnu/2.25-4
unblock binutils-mips64el-linux-gnuabi64/2.25-4
unblock binutils-mipsel-linux-gnu/2.25-4
unblock binutils-powerpc-linux-gnu/2.25-4
unblock binutils-powerpc64le-linux-gnu/2.25-4
unblock binutils-x86-64-linux-gnu/2.25-4
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 7.8
APT prefers stable-updates
APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'stable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 04:16 +0000, Wookey wrote:
> +++ Adam D. Barratt [2015-03-24 19:55 +0000]:
[...]
> > -chroot=unstable-amd64-cross-sbuild
> > +chroot=unstable-amd64-sbuild
> >
> > That change doesn't appear to be mentioned anywhere in the changelog
> > afaics.
>
> That script is just a maintainer's convenience script for doing the
> release build in the right chroot, tagging git etc, without making usual human
> errors. It's not something that is used in a normal
> (dpkg-buildpackage) build of the package.
>
> I changed the chroot name so that it would work for most people using
> sbuild-createchroot chroots (i.e default chroot naming), rather than
> just for me with my oddly-named chroot.
Okay, thanks. Unblocked.
Regards,
Adam
--- End Message ---
