On 09/08/2016 01:07 PM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> I've done a round of rebuilds to assess the impact of this transition.
> The results are summarized below. Several package suffer from
> uninstallable build dependencies by having libopenmpi1.10 pulled in by
> dependencies that failed to rebuil
On 09.09.2016 03:03, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Mon, 2016-09-05 at 22:32 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
Unfortunately it FTBFS on ppc64el; see
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=gdcm&arch=ppc64el&ver=2.4.4-3%2Bdeb8u1&stamp=1473373168
Hmm, this bug seem to be completely unrelated
On 09/09/2016 11:25 AM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> On 09/08/2016 01:07 PM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
>> I've done a round of rebuilds to assess the impact of this transition.
>> The results are summarized below. Several package suffer from
>> uninstallable build dependencies by having libope
On Fri, 2016-09-09 at 13:11 +0200, Gert Wollny wrote:
>
> On 09.09.2016 03:03, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > On Mon, 2016-09-05 at 22:32 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately it FTBFS on ppc64el; see
> > https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=gdcm&arch=ppc64el&ver=2.4.4-3%2Bdeb8u
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> forwarded 835397 https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-superlu.html
Bug #835397 [release.debian.org] transition: superlu
Set Bug forwarded-to-address to
'https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-superlu.html'.
> thanks
Stopping
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> block 835397 with 837152
Bug #835397 [release.debian.org] transition: superlu
835397 was blocked by: 835556 835557 836677
835397 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 835397: 837152
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact
>>> Is anybody else interested in helping? Thoughts/comments?
>>
>>Sorry to bump an old thread
>>
>>Please consider moving to Clang 3.8 or 4.0 as the LLVM front end for
>>the platform.
>>
>>Clang 3.5 and 3.6 are no longer maintained. The bugs we are
>>discovering and reporting are being closed
On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 14:05:25 +0200 Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
...
> >
> > It looks like armadillo will require a transition before it will
support
> > superlu >= 5.2.
>
> To deal with the armadillo/superlu situation, I've disabled armadillo
> support in gdal and will upload a new revision with
Hi,
First of all thanks to Lucas Nussbaum who ran the first test build!
2016-08-31 19:21 GMT+02:00 Steve Langasek :
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 11:26:55AM +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
>> Hello,
>> > Results are available at
>> > https://people.debian.org/~lucas/logs/2016/08/30/pie-bindnow-2016
As far as I can tell, the problem isn't the documentation, it's:
make[3]: *** No rule to make target
'/usr/lib/jvm/default-java/jre/lib/ppc64/libjawt.so', needed by
'bin/libvtkgdcmJava.so'. Stop.
Agreed, I didn't see this because I was scanning for "error:".
The compilation failure is stil
On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 09:19:39PM +0800, Drew Parsons wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 14:05:25 +0200 Sebastiaan Couwenberg l.nl> wrote:
> ...
> > >
> > > It looks like armadillo will require a transition before it will
> support
> > > superlu >= 5.2.
> >
> > To deal with the armadillo/superlu situa
On 09/09/2016 05:24 PM, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 09:19:39PM +0800, Drew Parsons wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 14:05:25 +0200 Sebastiaan Couwenberg > l.nl> wrote:
>> ...
It looks like armadillo will require a transition before it will
>> support
superlu >= 5.2.
On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 05:30:34PM +0200, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> On 09/09/2016 05:24 PM, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 09:19:39PM +0800, Drew Parsons wrote:
> >> On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 14:05:25 +0200 Sebastiaan Couwenberg >> l.nl> wrote:
> >> ...
>
> It looks lik
Dear Release Team,
I have erroneously uploaded armadillo to unstable to close #837152. I
wish to apologize and get advice on whether I can do something to
prevent further trouble.
Thanks, and sorry.
Kumar
--
One tree to rule them all,
One tree to find them,
One tree to bring them all,
and to it
On Fri, 2016-09-09 at 17:08 +0200, Gert Wollny wrote:
> > As far as I can tell, the problem isn't the documentation, it's:
> >
> > make[3]: *** No rule to make target
> > '/usr/lib/jvm/default-java/jre/lib/ppc64/libjawt.so', needed by
> > 'bin/libvtkgdcmJava.so'. Stop.
> >
> >
> Agreed, I didn't s
On 09/09/2016 06:14 PM, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> I have erroneously uploaded armadillo to unstable to close #837152. I
> wish to apologize and get advice on whether I can do something to
> prevent further trouble.
The transition workflow is documented on the wiki:
https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Rel
Hi,
thanks for the work on this. I'd like to defer the final decision to the
release team, however I'm not keen on having these defaults turned on
architectures which already have enough issues on their own. In the recent
porters call people claim that turning on these "should not be a problem"
While the Debian Release team has some citation about the quality of the
toolchain on their status page, it is not one of the release criteria documented
by the release team. I'd like to document the status how I do understand it for
some of the toolchains available in Debian.
I appreciate that t
Control: tags -1 + pending
On Fri, 2016-09-09 at 01:52 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Control: tags -1 -moreinfo +confirmed
>
> On Wed, 2016-09-07 at 11:48 +0200, Victor Seva wrote:
> > 2016-09-07 9:30 GMT+02:00 Adam D. Barratt :
> > > Thanks for caring about fixing this in jessie.
> > >
> > > I
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 + pending
Bug #836910 [release.debian.org] jessie-pu: package kamailio/4.2.0-2+deb8u1
Added tag(s) pending.
--
836910: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=836910
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processing changes file: inspircd_2.0.17-1+deb8u2_amd64.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: inspircd_2.0.17-1+deb8u2_arm64.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: inspircd_2.0.17-1+deb8u2_armel.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: inspircd_2.0.17-1+deb8u2_armhf.changes
ACCEPT
Process
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
Dear Release Team,
armadillo has already been uploaded to unstable. While the reverse
dependencies should build with a binNMU, I have not tested them and
will test it in the next couple
I am an active porter for the following architectures and I intend
to continue this for the lifetime of the Stretchj release (est. end
of 2020):
For mips, mipsel. mips64el I or my team at work
- test (most|all) packages on this architecture
- run a Debian testing or unstable system on port that I
Processing changes file: kamailio_4.2.0-2+deb8u2_i386.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: kamailio_4.2.0-2+deb8u2_powerpc.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: kamailio_4.2.0-2+deb8u2_s390x.changes
ACCEPT
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> forwarded 837199
> https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-armadillo.html
Bug #837199 [release.debian.org] transition: armadillo
Set Bug forwarded-to-address to
'https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-armadillo.html'.
> thanks
Processing changes file: kamailio_4.2.0-2+deb8u2_armel.changes
ACCEPT
Processing changes file: kamailio_4.2.0-2+deb8u2_mips.changes
ACCEPT
26 matches
Mail list logo
