On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 10:01:04AM +0200, Alwyn Schoeman wrote:
> Doesn't the autobuild system rebuild the whole system at regular
> intervals?
No. It only builds things that need to be rebuilt for the architecture
in question. Once a given version of a package has been compiled it
won't be reb
Doesn't the autobuild system rebuild the whole system at regular
intervals?
On Wed, 2002-02-20 at 00:24, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 10:43:45PM +0200, Alwyn Schoeman wrote:
>
> > It then made the status given-back and labeled it out-of-date.
> > This was 30 January 2002. The sour
Alwyn Schoeman wrote:
>
> Recently a newer version of the package that I maintain has
> been uploaded into unstable. When I look at the excuses file
> it should have been in testing 10 days ago, but there seems
> to be a problem with the m68k build.
>
> Upon further investigation it appears that
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 10:01:04AM +0200, Alwyn Schoeman wrote:
> Doesn't the autobuild system rebuild the whole system at regular
> intervals?
No. It only builds things that need to be rebuilt for the architecture
in question. Once a given version of a package has been compiled it
won't be re
Doesn't the autobuild system rebuild the whole system at regular
intervals?
On Wed, 2002-02-20 at 00:24, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 10:43:45PM +0200, Alwyn Schoeman wrote:
>
> > It then made the status given-back and labeled it out-of-date.
> > This was 30 January 2002. The sou
Alwyn Schoeman wrote:
>
> Recently a newer version of the package that I maintain has
> been uploaded into unstable. When I look at the excuses file
> it should have been in testing 10 days ago, but there seems
> to be a problem with the m68k build.
>
> Upon further investigation it appears tha
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 10:43:45PM +0200, Alwyn Schoeman wrote:
> It then made the status given-back and labeled it out-of-date.
> This was 30 January 2002. The sources are now available but
> it doesn't seem to be up for rebuilding?
It is up for rebuilding but nothing has decided to go back and
> How does this work and how can I get it to retry autobuilding
> the package?
It will retry when it gets to it. I'll just wait and wouldn't worry
much.
pgpyATkkwNSlU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
Recently a newer version of the package that I maintain has
been uploaded into unstable. When I look at the excuses file
it should have been in testing 10 days ago, but there seems
to be a problem with the m68k build.
Upon further investigation it appears that the m68k builder
tried building
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 10:43:45PM +0200, Alwyn Schoeman wrote:
> It then made the status given-back and labeled it out-of-date.
> This was 30 January 2002. The sources are now available but
> it doesn't seem to be up for rebuilding?
It is up for rebuilding but nothing has decided to go back an
> How does this work and how can I get it to retry autobuilding
> the package?
It will retry when it gets to it. I'll just wait and wouldn't worry
much.
msg05567/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
Recently a newer version of the package that I maintain has
been uploaded into unstable. When I look at the excuses file
it should have been in testing 10 days ago, but there seems
to be a problem with the m68k build.
Upon further investigation it appears that the m68k builder
tried buildin
12 matches
Mail list logo
