Bug#424353: marked as done (gnumach: FTBFS if built twice in a row)

Your message dated Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:17:12 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#424353: fixed in gnumach 2:1.3.99.dfsg.cvs20080708-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #424353, regarding gnumach: FTBFS if built twice in a row to be marked as done. This means that you cla

Bug#488946: marked as done (FTBFS)

Your message dated Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:17:13 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#474902: fixed in gnumach 2:1.3.99.dfsg.cvs20080708-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #474902, regarding FTBFS to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been deal

Bug#440068: marked as done (gnumach: GPT in fp_save, fpu.c:675)

Your message dated Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:17:13 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#440068: fixed in gnumach 2:1.3.99.dfsg.cvs20080708-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #440068, regarding gnumach: GPT in fp_save, fpu.c:675 to be marked as done. This means that you claim t

Bug#469566: marked as done (Mach crashes when DF=1 on syscall)

Your message dated Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:17:13 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#469566: fixed in gnumach 2:1.3.99.dfsg.cvs20080708-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #469566, regarding Mach crashes when DF=1 on syscall to be marked as done. This means that you claim th

Bug#474902: marked as done (gnumach: FTBFS: bad_user_access_length [only i386+gcc4.3])

Your message dated Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:17:13 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#474902: fixed in gnumach 2:1.3.99.dfsg.cvs20080708-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #474902, regarding gnumach: FTBFS: bad_user_access_length [only i386+gcc4.3] to be marked as done. This

gnumach override disparity

There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the override file for the following file(s): gnumach-dbg_1.3.99.dfsg.cvs20080708-1_i386.deb: package says section is devel, override says libdevel. Either the package or the override file is incorrect. If you think the override is

gnumach_1.3.99.dfsg.cvs20080708-1_i386.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: gnumach-dbg_1.3.99.dfsg.cvs20080708-1_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gnumach/gnumach-dbg_1.3.99.dfsg.cvs20080708-1_i386.deb gnumach-dev_1.3.99.dfsg.cvs20080708-1_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gnumach/gnumach-dev_1.3.99.dfsg.cvs20080708-1_i386.deb gnumach-udeb_1.3.99.dfsg.cvs20080708-1_i386.udeb

Processing of gnumach_1.3.99.dfsg.cvs20080708-1_i386.changes

gnumach_1.3.99.dfsg.cvs20080708-1_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: gnumach_1.3.99.dfsg.cvs20080708-1.dsc gnumach_1.3.99.dfsg.cvs20080708.orig.tar.gz gnumach_1.3.99.dfsg.cvs20080708-1.diff.gz gnumach_1.3.99.dfsg.cvs20080708-1_i386.deb gnumach-udeb_1.3.

Re: New machine for shitbox / wiki system

Barry deFreese, le Tue 08 Jul 2008 12:28:57 -0400, a écrit : > By "working Debian system" do you mean Debian GNU/Linux or a Debian Hurd > system? A GNU/Linux system, since gnumach does not support running as dom0. Samuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubsc

Re: New machine for shitbox / wiki system

Samuel Thibault wrote: Thomas Schwinge, le Tue 08 Jul 2008 09:41:20 +0200, a écrit : Not sure what the best approach is. Ideally, they should run in two distinct VMs sharing the hardware :-) Yes. That's also what I'd suggest. There'd as well be the plus of other people being able to

Bug#424353: setting package to gnumach-dev gnumach-dbg gnumach gnumach-udeb, tagging 424353

# Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.33 # via tagpending # # gnumach (2:1.3.99.dfsg.cvs20080708-1) UNRELEASED; urgency=low # # * Clean up debian/rules: #- Run autoreconf on-demand, which fixes a FTBFS when built twice in a # row. (Closes: #424353) #- Supp

Processed: setting package to gnumach-dev gnumach-dbg gnumach gnumach-udeb, tagging 424353

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.33 > # via tagpending > # > # gnumach (2:1.3.99.dfsg.cvs20080708-1) UNRELEASED; urgency=low > # > # * Clean up debian/rules: > #- Run autoreconf on-demand, which fixes a FTBFS when b

Processed: block 424353 with 488946

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.30 > block 424353 with 488946 Bug#488946: FTBFS Bug#424353: gnumach: FTBFS if built twice in a row Was not blocked by any bugs. Blocking bugs of 424353 added: 488946, 474902 > End of mes

Re: New machine for shitbox / wiki system

Thomas Schwinge, le Tue 08 Jul 2008 09:41:20 +0200, a écrit : > > Not sure what the best approach is. Ideally, they should run in two > > distinct VMs sharing the hardware :-) > > Yes. That's also what I'd suggest. There'd as well be the plus of other > people being able to reboot/recover hung s

Re: New machine for shitbox

Hello! On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 12:57:27PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Dani Doni, le Sat 05 Jul 2008 13:52:07 +0200, a écrit : > > Maybe I am wrong, but updates on wiki content should trigger little > > bursts of activity, not sustained periods of 100% cpu load. > > The wiki engine regenerates

Re: New machine for shitbox / wiki system

Hello! On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 02:16:41AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 10:56:17PM -0400, Barry deFreese wrote: > > I'm still a little concerned about the HD but I'm not sure how much > > trouble it would be to get it up on a new one. I'm up for > > suggestions, etc.