On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 02:29:28AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Build failures caused by bugs in dependent packages are one of the better
> reasons to ask for removal of stale binaries, IMHO. Please be sure to
> include this information in your bug report on ftp.debian.org.
OK. But the issue m
On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 10:20:33AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> > > I'm quite annoyed that this now becomes an RC issue for bigloo itself.
> > > Especially since the bigloo build issue on m68k is preventing a new skribe
> > > to enter sarge (the mips issue is due to bigloo being yet again autobuilt
On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 07:55:47PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 10:03:56PM +0100, wrote:
> > tags 282276 + sarge
> > thanks
>
> > On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 11:39:59PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > > Package: bigloo
> > > Version: 2.6d+2.6e-alpha040622-1
> > > Severity: ser
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 10:03:56PM +0100, wrote:
> tags 282276 + sarge
> thanks
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 11:39:59PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > Package: bigloo
> > Version: 2.6d+2.6e-alpha040622-1
> > Severity: serious
> > It currently can't be build in sarge because skribe is not
> > availab
tags 282276 + sarge
thanks
On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 11:39:59PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Package: bigloo
> Version: 2.6d+2.6e-alpha040622-1
> Severity: serious
>
> It currently can't be build in sarge because skribe is not
> available (anymore?).
Well, I've noticed that, and I still wonder who
5 matches
Mail list logo
