control: tag 858250 -pending
control: affects 858250 -stretch +sid
control: notfound 858250 0.1.1+dfsg1-2

On Thu, 18 May 2017 12:48:11 +0100
Jonathan Wiltshire <> wrote:

> Control: tag -1 wontfix moreinfo
> Hi,
> On 2017-05-08 00:40, Roger Shimizu wrote:
> > Since you say it should fix unstable first, then stretch or t-p-u,
> > now I think we may just leave runc/0.1.1+dfsg1-2 (current in stretch)
> > as it is in stretch. Because it builds OK (without FTBFS) for stretch.
> > The #858250 FTBFS only occurs on unstable.
> If runc currently builds in stretch, there is no need to touch it (and 
> #858250 should be tagged 'sid').
> It's not clear from #858250 if that is actually the case or not though.

Thanks for your explanation!

Yes, it builds well in stretch.
I did a s/unstable/testing/ for latest changelog, and upload it to DoM:

So I close the unblock request, and mark the original bug only affects unstable.
It's not a RC for stretch.

Roger Shimizu, GMT +9 Tokyo
PGP/GPG: 4096R/6C6ACD6417B3ACB1

Attachment: pgpZ5scPXihO8.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to