Hi Jonas,
Any chance you could upload the fixed ucommon version to unstable?
Otherwise, please let me know whether I should submit an NMU.
Regards,
Peter
Hi Jonas,
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 09:21:22AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> I will look at it tonight.
>
> Thanks for nudging!
Thanks for uploading a new version to experimental. Since the builds
passed on all release architectures, could you upload to unstable?
Regards,
Peter
Quoting Peter Colberg (2016-09-11 06:21:45)
> Dear Debian VoIP team,
>
> Could a DD review and upload the attached NMU for ucommon? I verified
> that twinkle still works when libucommon8:amd64 is built with GCC 6.
I will look at it tonight.
Thanks for nudging!
- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard
Dear Debian VoIP team,
Could a DD review and upload the attached NMU for ucommon? I verified
that twinkle still works when libucommon8:amd64 is built with GCC 6.
Peter
>From d731868c2267e0462e6f727188b0253912bcec80 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Colberg
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2016 00:08:14 -040
Hi Jonas,
Now that GCC 6 has been made default in unstable, could you upload
a new version of ucommon with an updated symbols file to prevent the
auto-removal of dependent packages from testing on 2016-09-02?
Regards,
Peter
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 09:58:27 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 03/08/16 02:02, Peter Colberg wrote:
> > Dear Debian Release Team,
> >
> > twinkle has been marked for autoremoval from testing on 2016-08-27 due
> > to this FTBFS. Building ucommon with GCC 6 instead of GCC 5 yields
> > s
On 03/08/16 02:02, Peter Colberg wrote:
> Dear Debian Release Team,
>
> twinkle has been marked for autoremoval from testing on 2016-08-27 due
> to this FTBFS. Building ucommon with GCC 6 instead of GCC 5 yields
> slight differences in the list of visible symbols.
>
> How should this bug be dealt
Dear Debian Release Team,
twinkle has been marked for autoremoval from testing on 2016-08-27 due
to this FTBFS. Building ucommon with GCC 6 instead of GCC 5 yields
slight differences in the list of visible symbols.
How should this bug be dealt with? Is it not simply a matter of
waiting for GCC 6
Hi Peter,
On 01/08/16 at 22:33 -0400, Peter Colberg wrote:
> Hi Lucas, Jonas,
>
> twinkle has been marked for autoremoval from testing on 2016-08-27 due
> to this FTBFS. Building ucommon with GCC 6 instead of GCC 5 yields
> slight differences in the list of visible symbols.
>
> How should this b
Hi Lucas, Jonas,
twinkle has been marked for autoremoval from testing on 2016-08-27 due
to this FTBFS. Building ucommon with GCC 6 instead of GCC 5 yields
slight differences in the list of visible symbols.
How should this bug be dealt with? Is it not simply a matter of
waiting for GCC 6 to become
Source: ucommon
Version: 7.0.0-6
Severity: serious
Tags: stretch sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: qa-ftbfs-20160713 qa-ftbfs
Justification: FTBFS with GCC 6 on amd64
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid using the gcc-defaults package
available in experimental to make GCC defa
11 matches
Mail list logo
