Re: bad status of s390 buildd

2004-10-10 Thread Wouter Verhelst
On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 10:36:55PM +0200, Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi wrote: > The Needs Build stage is not enough, as the bug was in the buildd; If packages are listed as maybe-failed on buildd.d.o, but they're in the needs-build list, that means some human did something. I think it's safe to assume

Re: bad status of s390 buildd

2004-10-10 Thread Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi
* Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-10-10 15:07:42 +0200]: > On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 12:43:05AM +0200, Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi wrote: > > Please fix it, as the current mozilla version in Sarge has way too many > > security problems. > > Hmm, what has this to do with the release team? A

Re: bad status of s390 buildd

2004-10-10 Thread Frank Lichtenheld
On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 12:43:05AM +0200, Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi wrote: > Please fix it, as the current mozilla version in Sarge has way too many > security problems. Hmm, what has this to do with the release team? Also, the package was already in state Needs.Build again, when you wrote this mai

bad status of s390 buildd

2004-10-09 Thread Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi
Hi, Checking recent mozilla builds, I am happy to see it builds on mips finally. But I also see that there is a problem with s390 buildd[1]: [...] 0 upgraded, 70 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded. Need to get 0B/24.8MB of archives. After unpacking 81.8MB of additional disk space wil