On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 01:27:57AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: > * Hubert Chathi [Sat, 19 Jul 2008 11:35:20 -0400]: > > > How is that? noweb just depends on gawk, iconx, and libc6, and the > > dependency on iconx is unversioned, so shouldn't it be satisfied with > > the version of icon that's in testing? > > There is no noweb in armel in testing, though, so in order to migrate > noweb/2.11b-7/armel, britney wants to migrate iconx/9.4.3-1/armel first. > And see #475952 about that...
> However, since noweb/armel is broken in testing anyway, migrating it > does not makes things worse, so I've added a force hint to let noweb > migrate. And to fix that last part, should I upload a icon/9.4.2-2.8/armel to t-p-u or can you force icon/9.4.3-1/armel in? The traditional way of "fixing" icon build problems was to add -O0 as default - now all archs (including sparc) have this flag enabled :-| -- "rm -rf" only sounds scary if you don't have backups -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
