On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 10:53:51AM +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote:
12.11.2014 04:27, Diederik de Haas wrote:
Package: busybox-static
Version: 1:1.22.0-11
Severity: important
This is basically the same error as with bug #757941, but it was
reassigned to glibc and fixed there. As
BTW, the bug is _not_ fixed by -12 upload where I added a build-dep on libc-bin.
/mjt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/546396a3.1000...@msgid.tls.msk.ru
12.11.2014 21:05, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
[]
And there's nothing I can do about this on busybox side -- except,
again, adding a versioned build-dep.
I'll schedule binNMUs for now, but it might be a good idea to add a
versioned build-dep so that it doesn't happen again.
Please don't. I want
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 09:17:20PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote:
12.11.2014 21:05, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
[]
And there's nothing I can do about this on busybox side -- except,
again, adding a versioned build-dep.
I'll schedule binNMUs for now, but it might be a good idea to add a
12.11.2014 22:45, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 09:17:20PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote:
Should I list them all in the build-deps? If yes, what's the complete list?
It should be libc6-dev[linux-any !alpha !ia64] | libc6.1-dev [alpha ia64] |
libc0.1-dev ( 2.19-12~)
Hi,
Michael Tokarev wrote:
Since this is all alternatives, is it really necessary to list the [arch]
names? I mean, just list of pkgs with versions should be enough I think,
each arch will pick the right name, no?
I could be wrong, but I think within sbuild only the first of the
alternatives
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:03:39AM +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote:
12.11.2014 22:45, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 09:17:20PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote:
Should I list them all in the build-deps? If yes, what's the complete
list?
It should be libc6-dev[linux-any !alpha
13.11.2014 00:03, Michael Tokarev пишет:
12.11.2014 22:45, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 09:17:20PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote:
Should I list them all in the build-deps? If yes, what's the complete list?
It should be libc6-dev[linux-any !alpha !ia64] | libc6.1-dev [alpha
Package: busybox-static
Version: 1:1.22.0-11
Severity: important
This is basically the same error as with bug #757941, but it was
reassigned to glibc and fixed there. As Aurelien Jarno correctly stated
in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=757941#120
it was indeed fixed with
12.11.2014 04:27, Diederik de Haas wrote:
Package: busybox-static
Version: 1:1.22.0-11
Severity: important
This is basically the same error as with bug #757941, but it was
reassigned to glibc and fixed there. As Aurelien Jarno correctly stated
in
10 matches
Mail list logo
