Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > http://people.debian.org/~wouter/wanna-build-states
>>
>> There's a lot of information hidden beneath the surface, it seems. Is
>> there a place through which I could have discovered this, other than
>> asking on debian-mentors? :-)
>
> An
On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 07:40:45PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> http://people.debian.org/~wouter/wanna-build-states
> not-for-us
> Certain specific packages are architecture-specific; for instance,
> "lilo", an i386 boot loader, should not be rebuilt on alpha, m68k,
> or s390.
Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > http://people.debian.org/~wouter/wanna-build-states
>>
>> There's a lot of information hidden beneath the surface, it seems. Is
>> there a place through which I could have discovered this, other than
>> asking on debian-mentors? :-)
>
> An
Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Yes, it seems the most recent arm build failed, but yet the current
>> > icu28 (2.8-3) is in testing. Perhaps someone built it manually.
>> > There are no bugs posted again icu28.
>>
>> In testing but not in unstable for arm? Or in testing w
Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> > > Yes, it seems the most recent arm build failed, but yet the
> > > current icu28 (2.8-3) is in testing.
> >
> > In testing but not in unstable for arm? Or in testing without arm
> > support?
>
> Hmm. In testing and unstable without arm support. How does this
> happen?
> > http://people.debian.org/~wouter/wanna-build-states
>
> There's a lot of information hidden beneath the surface, it seems. Is
> there a place through which I could have discovered this, other than
> asking on debian-mentors? :-)
Answering my own question, I see a link to this in bu
> > Yes, it seems the most recent arm build failed, but yet the current
> > icu28 (2.8-3) is in testing. Perhaps someone built it manually.
> > There are no bugs posted again icu28.
>
> In testing but not in unstable for arm? Or in testing without arm
> support?
Hmm. In testing and un
On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 07:40:45PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> http://people.debian.org/~wouter/wanna-build-states
> not-for-us
> Certain specific packages are architecture-specific; for instance,
> "lilo", an i386 boot loader, should not be rebuilt on alpha, m68k,
> or s390.
Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Yes, it seems the most recent arm build failed, but yet the current
>> > icu28 (2.8-3) is in testing. Perhaps someone built it manually.
>> > There are no bugs posted again icu28.
>>
>> In testing but not in unstable for arm? Or in testing w
Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> > > Yes, it seems the most recent arm build failed, but yet the
> > > current icu28 (2.8-3) is in testing.
> >
> > In testing but not in unstable for arm? Or in testing without arm
> > support?
>
> Hmm. In testing and unstable without arm support. How does this
> happen?
> > http://people.debian.org/~wouter/wanna-build-states
>
> There's a lot of information hidden beneath the surface, it seems. Is
> there a place through which I could have discovered this, other than
> asking on debian-mentors? :-)
Answering my own question, I see a link to this in bu
> > Yes, it seems the most recent arm build failed, but yet the current
> > icu28 (2.8-3) is in testing. Perhaps someone built it manually.
> > There are no bugs posted again icu28.
>
> In testing but not in unstable for arm? Or in testing without arm
> support?
Hmm. In testing and un
Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > * On all three packages, the arm build failed because of an
>> >unsatisfiable build dependency that was the result of a timing
>> >problem. These should succeed now as the problem with the
>> >dependent package has been cleared.
> > * On all three packages, the arm build failed because of an
> >unsatisfiable build dependency that was the result of a timing
> >problem. These should succeed now as the problem with the
> >dependent package has been cleared. I emailed
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] to reque
Hi,
Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is a variant of a commonly asked question, but I'm still not able
> to find a clearly stated answer.
>
> three of my packages:
>
> http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xerces23.html
> http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xerces24.html
> http://packages.
Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > * On all three packages, the arm build failed because of an
>> >unsatisfiable build dependency that was the result of a timing
>> >problem. These should succeed now as the problem with the
>> >dependent package has been cleared.
This is a variant of a commonly asked question, but I'm still not able
to find a clearly stated answer.
three of my packages:
http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xerces23.html
http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xerces24.html
http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xerces25.html
have all not entered testing be
> > * On all three packages, the arm build failed because of an
> >unsatisfiable build dependency that was the result of a timing
> >problem. These should succeed now as the problem with the
> >dependent package has been cleared. I emailed
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] to reque
Hi,
Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is a variant of a commonly asked question, but I'm still not able
> to find a clearly stated answer.
>
> three of my packages:
>
> http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xerces23.html
> http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xerces24.html
> http://packages.
This is a variant of a commonly asked question, but I'm still not able
to find a clearly stated answer.
three of my packages:
http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xerces23.html
http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xerces24.html
http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xerces25.html
have all not entered testing be
20 matches
Mail list logo
