reassign 234772 libice-dev
thanks
Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> reassign 234772 apt
> thanks
a) DON'T ABUSE -QUIET.
b) don't randomly reassign bugs if you don't know what you're talking
about. This is NOT a bug in apt. It's (the indirect result) of a
bug in the postrm of the
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 06:24:31AM -0500, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I've gotten a bunch of FTBFSes for cernlib 2003.09.03-4 which I assume are
>> related to the new X release. The problem is that when linking a program
>> with these flags,
Michel Dänzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> James Troup, on IRC and a few of the porting lists, speculated that
>> this is a buildd problem, and gave instructions for working around
>> it.
Eh, I didn't mean to give the impression that it was a buildd problem
- I do
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Fair enough, don't worry about it then.
>
> Well, I don't actually *like* to inconvenience buildd admins...
I didn't mean to imply you did.
> I see. Perhaps I am being optimistic, but maybe all the buildd
> chroots have been updated to the requisi
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 10:51:26PM +0000, James Troup wrote:
>> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >> > +Build-Conflicts: cpp-3.3 (<< 1:3.3.3ds1-0pre1)
>>
>> FWI
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > +Build-Conflicts: cpp-3.3 (<< 1:3.3.3ds1-0pre1)
FWIW, Build-Depends on a >> version are much more buildd (admin)
friendly than a Build-Conflicts. The B-C isn't wrong, of course, and
the unfriendliness of a B-C for buildd (admins) is arguably an s
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> tag 220864 + moreinfo
> thanks
>
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 08:31:28AM +0100, Jurriaan wrote:
>> Package: xserver-xfree86
>> Version: 4.2.1-14
>> Severity: normal
>> Tags: sid
>>
>> After typing 'startx', the VT I start X from becomes clogged with at
Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> AFAICT, the only kernel headers on there are 2.4.21-sparc, and it should
Err, no. All architectures use the linux-kernel-headers package now
and it's 2.6 based.
Anyway, don't worry, I've tracked down the problem with the help of
the glibc folks and it'
Hi,
I haven't had a chance to investigate this yet, so no bug, but I
thought I'd at least warn you. This was the 3rd attempt on vore. The
first had an out-of-date linux-kernel-headers installed in the chroot,
so I freshened the chroot and retried. #2 got bitten by the sparc32
fuckage (see sparc
X Strike Force SVN Repository Admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Split xlibs-dbg package into one package per shared library.
What's the rationale behind this? I understand the rationale for -dev
and lib packages but not -dbg. AFAICS soname bumps don't affect -dbg
packages and any split to a s
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 06:02:24PM -0400, Debian Installer wrote:
>> Mapping stable-security to proposed-updates.
>> Rejected: no source found for xfree86 4.1.0-16woody1
>> (xlibmesa3_4.1.0-16woody1_ia64.deb).
> [etc.]
>
> I was told on IRC by mdz an
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 06:02:24PM -0400, Debian Installer wrote:
>> Mapping stable-security to proposed-updates.
>> Rejected: no source found for xfree86 4.1.0-16woody1
>> (xlibmesa3_4.1.0-16woody1_ia64.deb).
> [etc.]
>
> I was told on IRC by mdz an
X Strike Force SVN Admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - debian/control: add build-conflict with gcc-3.3 (<< 3.3.2-0pre1)
[...]
> +Build-Conflicts: gcc-3.3 (<< 3.3.2-0pre1)
Unfortunately this is missing the epoch, rendering the Build-Conflict
ineffective...
| auric$ madison gcc-3.3
| [...]
|
X Strike Force SVN Admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - debian/control: add build-conflict with gcc-3.3 (<< 3.3.2-0pre1)
[...]
> +Build-Conflicts: gcc-3.3 (<< 3.3.2-0pre1)
Unfortunately this is missing the epoch, rendering the Build-Conflict
ineffective...
| auric$ madison gcc-3.3
| [...]
|
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Looking at the build logs you'll see many warnings:
>
> dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules
>
> Is it safe to ignore these warnings? Please could you try to compile
> using -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing to see if this is re
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Looking at the build logs you'll see many warnings:
>
> dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules
>
> Is it safe to ignore these warnings? Please could you try to compile
> using -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing to see if this is re
X Strike Force SVN Admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> + /* m68k has no 2.4 kernel yet */
> + # ifndef Mc68020Architecture
> + #define HasLinuxInput YES
> @@ -701,7 +714,7 @@
This seems out-of-date?
--
James
X Strike Force SVN Admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> + /* m68k has no 2.4 kernel yet */
> + # ifndef Mc68020Architecture
> + #define HasLinuxInput YES
> @@ -701,7 +714,7 @@
This seems out-of-date?
--
James
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "un
X Strike Force SVN Admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Author: branden
> Date: 2003-06-04 10:08:27 -0500 (Wed, 04 Jun 2003)
> New Revision: 139
>
> Modified:
>trunk/debian/changelog
>trunk/debian/rules
> Log:
> step compile optimization level down to -O from Policy-required -O2 for arm
> a
X Strike Force SVN Admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Author: branden
> Date: 2003-06-04 10:08:27 -0500 (Wed, 04 Jun 2003)
> New Revision: 139
>
> Modified:
>trunk/debian/changelog
>trunk/debian/rules
> Log:
> step compile optimization level down to -O from Policy-required -O2 for arm
> a
Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, but it's not Xinerama's problem, and I don't see why it should
> be bending over backwards to support people using it from another
> language.
Err, because that's the way things are done? Have a look at the
include files from any major library you
Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 01:43:33AM +0100, Michel D?nzer scrawled:
>> A broken package name to compensate for broken assumptions? Right. Give
>> it the Mesa version then, or document it in the description, or
>> wherever.
>
> You obviously don't understand
Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 01:43:33AM +0100, Michel D?nzer scrawled:
>> A broken package name to compensate for broken assumptions? Right. Give
>> it the Mesa version then, or document it in the description, or
>> wherever.
>
> You obviously don't understand
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> According to buildd.debian.org, the arm autobuilder successfully
> built xfree86 4.2.1-3 on October 20th.
The machine it's on (and the two other .ca arm buildds) are down and
awaiting TLC from local admin.
--
James
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> According to buildd.debian.org, the arm autobuilder successfully
> built xfree86 4.2.1-3 on October 20th.
The machine it's on (and the two other .ca arm buildds) are down and
awaiting TLC from local admin.
--
James
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [E
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > xfree86 4.2.1-4 will B-D on "kernel-headers-2.4.19-386 |
> > > kernel-headers-2.4 | hurd | freebsd | netbsd | openbsd". This will of
> > > course only help Linux/i386 people, but it's better than nothing.
> >
> > FYI that'll break auto-building;
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > xfree86 4.2.1-4 will B-D on "kernel-headers-2.4.19-386 |
> > > kernel-headers-2.4 | hurd | freebsd | netbsd | openbsd". This will of
> > > course only help Linux/i386 people, but it's better than nothing.
> >
> > FYI that'll break auto-building;
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> xfree86 4.2.1-4 will B-D on "kernel-headers-2.4.19-386 |
> kernel-headers-2.4 | hurd | freebsd | netbsd | openbsd". This will of
> course only help Linux/i386 people, but it's better than nothing.
FYI that'll break auto-building; sbuild takes the fi
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> xfree86 4.2.1-4 will B-D on "kernel-headers-2.4.19-386 |
> kernel-headers-2.4 | hurd | freebsd | netbsd | openbsd". This will of
> course only help Linux/i386 people, but it's better than nothing.
FYI that'll break auto-building; sbuild takes the fi
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 12:18:46PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> > While the issues on unmodifiable non-software stuff in Debian are
> > not as clear-cut as Branden has made them out to be (I know of at
> > least a half dozen packages in main that are
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 12:18:46PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> > While the issues on unmodifiable non-software stuff in Debian are
> > not as clear-cut as Branden has made them out to be (I know of at
> > least a half dozen packages in main that ar
31 matches
Mail list logo
