On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 01:56:54AM +0100, Steve Cotton wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 09:38:12PM +0100, Steve Cotton wrote:
> > Sorry, but it's turned out that my patch either doesn't completely
> > avoid the bug, or doesn't avoid another bug which gives the same error
> > message. The build has
On 20.02.2017 01:56, Steve Cotton wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 09:38:12PM +0100, Steve Cotton wrote:
>> Sorry, but it's turned out that my patch either doesn't completely
>> avoid the bug, or doesn't avoid another bug which gives the same error
>> message. The build has failed on arm64.
>
> I
On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 09:38:12PM +0100, Steve Cotton wrote:
> Sorry, but it's turned out that my patch either doesn't completely
> avoid the bug, or doesn't avoid another bug which gives the same error
> message. The build has failed on arm64.
I've tried to reproduce this locally (on amd64, not
Hi Markus and Santiago,
Sorry, but it's turned out that my patch either doesn't completely
avoid the bug, or doesn't avoid another bug which gives the same error
message. The build has failed on arm64.
On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 09:05:07PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Even if I had not the technic
On 19.02.2017 21:05, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 08:03:37PM +0100, Markus Koschany wrote:
>
>> You constantly ignore different views and arguments and I am not the
>> only one who questions your approach and your aggressive behaviour,
>
> Please stop the name-calling.
No, I wo
On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 08:03:37PM +0100, Markus Koschany wrote:
> You constantly ignore different views and arguments and I am not the
> only one who questions your approach and your aggressive behaviour,
Please stop the name-calling.
> [...]
> for pushing your agenda on other people. [...]
So
On 19.02.2017 19:31, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 07:00:41PM +0100, Markus Koschany wrote:
>
>> Thank you for the patch. I will apply this one today. Please note that
>> this is simply a workaround for a limitation of Santiago's build
>> environment.
>
> Absolutely not.
>
> Thi
On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 07:00:41PM +0100, Markus Koschany wrote:
> Thank you for the patch. I will apply this one today. Please note that
> this is simply a workaround for a limitation of Santiago's build
> environment.
Absolutely not.
This is basic Computer Science: Everything that you can do w
Control: tags -1 pending
On 19.02.2017 18:18, Steve Cotton wrote:
> package ri-li
> tags 848063 +patch
> thanks
>
[...]
> Hi,
>
> The attached patch solves this with taskset, although I haven't tried with a
> real single-CPU'd buildd.
>
> It's a one-liner at the start of a resource-generator to
package ri-li
tags 848063 +patch
thanks
On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 04:09:56PM +0100, Steve Cotton wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 06:26:51PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > The following packages FTBFS for me randomly. First column is the bug
> > number, second column is the estimated probability of
10 matches
Mail list logo
