> "F" == Faré writes:
F> I uploaded packages for cl-asdf 2.004 and cl-launch 3.000 to
F> mentors. Can someone with proper privileges give a look and
F> bless them?
I can handle cl-launch. However this has been uploaded to mentors as a
native Debian package (.tar.gz instead of
slime_20100722-1_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
slime_20100722-1.dsc
slime_20100722.orig.tar.gz
slime_20100722-1.debian.tar.gz
slime_20100722-1_all.deb
cl-swank_20100722-1_all.deb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck
Accepted:
cl-swank_20100722-1_all.deb
to main/s/slime/cl-swank_20100722-1_all.deb
slime_20100722-1.debian.tar.gz
to main/s/slime/slime_20100722-1.debian.tar.gz
slime_20100722-1.dsc
to main/s/slime/slime_20100722-1.dsc
slime_20100722-1_all.deb
to main/s/slime/slime_20100722-1_all.deb
slim
Your message dated Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:32:23 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#588575: fixed in slime 1:20100722-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #588575,
regarding SLIME and Swank have version mismatch
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
Dear Milan,
> F> I uploaded packages for cl-asdf 2.004 and cl-launch 3.000 to
> F> mentors. Can someone with proper privileges give a look and
> F> bless them?
>
> I can handle cl-launch. However this has been uploaded to mentors as a
> native Debian package (.tar.gz instead of .orig.ta
> "F" == Faré writes:
F> Problem is, cl-launch 3 depends on asdf 2, so it's not
F> immediately helpful to upload cl-launch before asdf is
F> updated. That said, cl-launch 2 is probably already broken by
F> asdf 1.704, so you may as well upload it now and things will
F> ma
Hi!
* Christoph Egger [100717 11:58]:
> I've installed sbcl in a clean sid (amd64) chroot (main system is
> i386 with amd64 kern) started sbcl and (require)d some libraries
> (cl-irc) which all went well. If it's still breaking for you I'll have
> to discuss this with upstream
I could repro
I don't see any obvious error message in either of your logs. Looks
like it ends up successfully dumping a c-l-c image in both cases.
(What is obvious is that c-l-c should disable compiler optimization
notes by default, though - who's in charge of c-l-c? Should I file a
bug?)
What exactly breaks f
Hi!
Am 22.07.2010 17:54, schrieb Faré:
> I don't see any obvious error message in either of your logs. Looks
> like it ends up successfully dumping a c-l-c image in both cases.
> (What is obvious is that c-l-c should disable compiler optimization
> notes by default, though - who's in charge of c-l
