Hello, new RC bug was open... FTBFS :)
G.
Il giovedì 2 gennaio 2025 alle ore 04:23:03 CET, Joost van Baal-Ilić
ha scritto:
On Wed, Jan 01, 2025 at 07:33:55PM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> Hello, looks fixed now,
> indeed one of the bugs was marking the same version as affecte
On Wed, Jan 01, 2025 at 07:33:55PM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> Hello, looks fixed now,
> indeed one of the bugs was marking the same version as affected and fixed, so
> confusing BTS
A, that explains! Thanks for checking again.
Take care, Bye,
Joost
--
Ever tried. Ever failed. No m
Hello, looks fixed now,
indeed one of the bugs was marking the same version as affected and fixed, so
confusing BTS
G.
Il mercoledì 1 gennaio 2025 alle ore 12:55:57 CET, Joost van Baal-Ilić
ha scritto:
Hi,
Thank you Tobias, Gianfranco and Andrey for your insightfull comments. Both
Hi,
Thank you Tobias, Gianfranco and Andrey for your insightfull comments. Both
Tobias and Gianfranco have changed the bug status (thanks for that!); I'll wait
a day to see if this fixed the issue. If not, I expect I am now able to clean
my mess myself.
Bye,
Joost
On Wed, Jan 01, 2025 at 09:51:48AM +0100, Joost van Baal-Ilić wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/pwdsphinx
> it says: "Updating pwdsphinx would introduce bugs in testing: #1090262" .
>
> And at https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/pyequihash it says: "Marked for
> autoremoval on 14 Janu
Hello, next time better first reassign the bug to the right package, and affect
it.
E.g. (untested)
reassign 1090262 libequihash
affects 1090262 src: pwdsphinx
and then close in libequihash.
Now I did play a little bit with bts marking the "affected version" as "not
affected anymore", maybe t
On Wed, Jan 01, 2025 at 09:51:48AM +0100, Joost van Baal-Ilić wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/pwdsphinx
> it says: "Updating pwdsphinx would introduce bugs in testing: #1090262" .
>
> And at https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/pyequihash it says: "Marked for
> autoremoval on 14 Janu
7 matches
Mail list logo
