On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 12:42:30PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Moreover, looking at [1], there is a quite rather impressive list of
> > package that FTBFS since ages, that are apparently unmaintained, and
> > whose maintainer looks like to
Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 12:42:30PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
>> FTBFS. All of those you can probably summarize under bit-rot. The
>> Debian-amd64 team has now started doing some aggressive porter NMUs
>> (policy allows them after 7 days so don't
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 12:42:30PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> FTBFS. All of those you can probably summarize under bit-rot. The
> Debian-amd64 team has now started doing some aggressive porter NMUs
> (policy allows them after 7 days so don't come screaming if we NMU
> some month old bug)
Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Moreover, looking at [1], there is a quite rather impressive list of
> package that FTBFS since ages, that are apparently unmaintained, and
> whose maintainer looks like to be MIA since more than a year (all
> packages are the same version as in sta
It looks like that the archive has now been built, and that only newly
uploaded packages, and packages that Dep-Wait on Failed builds remains.
Maybe is it time to authorize amd64 uploads ?
Moreover, looking at [1], there is a quite rather impressive list of
package that FTBFS since ages
5 matches
Mail list logo
