Your message dated Sat, 28 Dec 2024 13:23:52 +0100
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#1091387: nmu: fenicsx-performance-tests_0.9.0-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #1091387,
regarding nmu: fenicsx-performance-tests_0.9.0-2
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.)
--
1091387: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1091387
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: [email protected]
Control: affects -1 + src:fenicsx-performance-tests
User: [email protected]
Usertags: binnmu
nmu fenicsx-performance-tests_0.9.0-2 . armel armhf i386 m68k sh4 . unstable .
-m "Rebuild against petsc 3.22."
There was already a binNMU to rebuild fenicsx-performance-tests
against petsc 3.22, but something seems to have gone wrong with it.
It still used petsc 3.21 instead of 3.22.
So requesting the binNMU to be run again.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 2024-12-25 10:10:06 +0100, Drew Parsons wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> X-Debbugs-Cc: [email protected]
> Control: affects -1 + src:fenicsx-performance-tests
> User: [email protected]
> Usertags: binnmu
>
> nmu fenicsx-performance-tests_0.9.0-2 . armel armhf i386 m68k sh4 . unstable
> . -m "Rebuild against petsc 3.22."
>
> There was already a binNMU to rebuild fenicsx-performance-tests
> against petsc 3.22, but something seems to have gone wrong with it.
> It still used petsc 3.21 instead of 3.22.
> So requesting the binNMU to be run again.
Scheduled
Cheers
--
Sebastian Ramacher
--- End Message ---
