Your message dated Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:46:06 -0500
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: memtailor: FTBFS on 32-bit platforms: symbols not as
expected
has caused the Debian Bug report #788245,
regarding memtailor: FTBFS on 32-bit platforms: symbols not as expected
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
788245: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=788245
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Source: memtailor
Version: 1.0~git20130809-1
Severity: important
Builds of memtailor for 32-bit architectures like i386 have been
failing because some methods have slightly different formal types, and
thus slightly different mangled names, on 32- and 64-bit
architectures. Could you please account for these differences? You
can find the failed builds' logs at
https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=memtailor&ver=1.0%7Egit20130809-1
Thanks!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 1.0~git20130809-2
On Tue, 09 Jun 2015 14:34:20 -0400 "Aaron M. Ucko" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Builds of memtailor for 32-bit architectures like i386 have been
> failing because some methods have slightly different formal types, and
> thus slightly different mangled names, on 32- and 64-bit
> architectures. Could you please account for these differences? You
> can find the failed builds' logs at
>
>
https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=memtailor&ver=1.0%7Egit20130809-1
This was just fixed in an upload earlier today. I missed the original
bug report, so it wasn't closed in d/changelog.
Doug
--- End Message ---
