On 20/05/16 20:21, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 18.05.2016 um 16:45 schrieb Emilio Pozuelo Monfort:
>> Control: tags -1 confirmed
>>
>> On 18/05/16 15:14, Michael Biebl wrote:
>>> Am 17.05.2016 um 21:41 schrieb Michael Biebl:
We used deb-o-matic to compile all reverse dependencies, and only
Am 18.05.2016 um 16:45 schrieb Emilio Pozuelo Monfort:
> Control: tags -1 confirmed
>
> On 18/05/16 15:14, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> Am 17.05.2016 um 21:41 schrieb Michael Biebl:
>>> We used deb-o-matic to compile all reverse dependencies, and only
>>> syncevolution failed to build. I was told that
Control: tags -1 confirmed
On 18/05/16 15:14, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 17.05.2016 um 21:41 schrieb Michael Biebl:
>> We used deb-o-matic to compile all reverse dependencies, and only
>> syncevolution failed to build. I was told that a fix for that is in the
>> works.
>
> Small update here: synce
Am 17.05.2016 um 21:41 schrieb Michael Biebl:
> We used deb-o-matic to compile all reverse dependencies, and only
> syncevolution failed to build. I was told that a fix for that is in the
> works.
Small update here: syncevolution currently FTBFS because of libical
(#824426), once that bug is fixed
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition
Hi,
with the libical transition [1] finished, we'd like to proceed with
evolution-data-server 3.20. The auto-tracker at 3.20 looks fine.
We used deb-o-matic to compile all reverse depen
5 matches
Mail list logo