fixed 739261 hdf5/1.8.12+docs-1.1

Emilio Pozuelo Monfort a écrit , Le 12/06/2014 20:11:
> On 04/06/14 01:17, Gilles Filippini wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Frank Loeffler a écrit , Le 03/06/2014 21:01:
>>> Being hit by this myself now, I am a bit surprised by the reaction "can
>>> wait a little longer", for an issue that clearly breaks the Fortran
>>> interface and seems to be easily fixable.
>>> But this aside - is there a plan to get this into _any_ of the future
>>> point releases of stable?
>> I have no plan but getting the binNMU #740561 processed.
>> And it all depends on the good will of the release team.
> You've requested a binnmu for stable on ALL architectures. Before scheduling
> that, I'd like to clarify some things:
> Is this bug affecting testing/unstable? If not, please mark it as fixed as
> appropriate in #739261.

This bug doesn't affect testing nor unstable. Marking it fixed for the
related version.

> Is this bug really affecting all architectures? From what I can see, gfortran 
> in
> wheezy is 4.6 everywhere except on amd64, i386, kfreebsd-amd64 and 
> kfreebsd-i386:
>   gfortran |     4:4.6.3-8 |     stable | armel, armhf, ia64, mips, mipsel,
> powerpc, s390, s390x, sparc
>   gfortran |     4:4.7.2-1 |     stable | amd64, i386, kfreebsd-amd64, 
> kfreebsd-i386
> And hdf5 1.8.8-9 was built against 4.6 everywhere, from what I can see on:
> So do we need the binnmu everywhere, or only on those architectures where the
> default gfortran was bumped to 4.7, i.e. on amd64, i386, kfreebsd-amd64 and
> kfreebsd-i386?

My mistake: I took for granted that gfortran was upgraded to 4.7
on all architectures.

nmu hdf5_1.8.8-9 . amd64 i386 kfreebsd-amd64 kfreebsd-i386 . stable . -m 
"Rebuild with current gfortran in wheezy (closes: #739261)"

Hoping to get it right this time :/


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Pkg-grass-devel mailing list

Reply via email to