On Sat, 2016-12-17 at 14:09 -0800, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> It seems the exit called from find_dtb_file() doesn't exit the whole
> program. I know this is normal because it's called in a subshell,
> but
> flash-kernel itself does a "set -e" so I thought any exit should
> trigger the whole
On Sat, 2016-12-17 at 12:59 -0800, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> It seems I never applied this patch because I was waiting for Ian to
> review it.
>
> Ian, do you have some time to look at the proposed patch?
I'm a bit jet-lagged, but your explanation does seem to make sense. I
reckon go with the
discover_2.1.2-7.1_source.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
discover_2.1.2-7.1.dsc
discover_2.1.2-7.1.diff.gz
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host usper.debian.org)
control: tags -1 patch
control: tags -1 pending
> that patch would be needed also on ppc64el.
> Anyone can have a look at it ?
> Thank you very much,
>
I sponsored the attached debdiff in deferred/3, since the freeze is
approaching, and even
a no-change rebuild of the current package makes the
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 patch
Bug #533688 [discover] (discover_2.1.2-3/avr32): FTBFS: Outdated
config.{sub,guess}
Bug #759442 [discover] discover: run dh-autoreconf to update for new
architectures
Ignoring request to alter tags of bug #533688 to the same tags previously set
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 11:14:20AM -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> > as another data point, for reproducible-builds we're running four i386 build
> > nodes on virtual amd64 hardware, with 36GB ram each, and at least building
> > the
> > Debian archive works nicely.
> But are they amd64 installs
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 11:28:27AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> interesting.
Yes.
> as another data point, for reproducible-builds we're running four i386 build
> nodes on virtual amd64 hardware, with 36GB ram each, and at least building the
> Debian archive works nicely.
But are they amd64
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 07:29:40AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > So did you actually mean to install a 32 bit OS on a nice 64 bit machine
> > with 32 GB ram?
> > Just curious. Obviously it will work,
> Well, it will boot, but it probably won't work properly - see bug
> #695182.
interesting.
8 matches
Mail list logo