Hi,
On 12/01/17 14:54, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
> I would like to point out that it would be preferable if, in case a patch is
> preferable over going back to the last know version to work, either Matthias
> or a mips porter points out which of the two proposed patches is
As a FYI, Matthias wrote to me in IRC just now indicating that he plans
to upload a patch in the next couple of days.
(He needs to get to the location where he has the right environment
before preparing the upload).
As such, I'm planning on holding off on calling for any votes.
I would like to point out that it would be preferable if, in case a patch is
preferable over going back to the last know version to work, either Matthias
or a mips porter points out which of the two proposed patches is preferable.
For the time being I'm testing the patch I submited to the bug,
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 16:56:05 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> Hi.
> I'd really appreciate comments from debian-release on this issue.
> Would debian-release like us to take this up?
> If so, I have a proposal for how to fast-track this situation, but I am
> only comfortable doing that if the
I would like to mention that in my previous mail I forgot another possible fix
for this bug: going back to binutils 2.27. The current uploads are snapshots
of the next version, 2.28, and whereas the bug in question seems to habe been
there all the time it started to affect us since a commit in
Hi.
I'd really appreciate comments from debian-release on this issue.
Would debian-release like us to take this up?
If so, I have a proposal for how to fast-track this situation, but I am
only comfortable doing that if the release team is involved.
Package: tech-ctte
Severity: normal
Hi! Before stating the issue at hand I would like to address the fact that
this issue needs a quick solution as many packages are not able to
enter testing and we are near the freeze.
I would like the TC to address a solution for bug #844227. It's a binutils
7 matches
Mail list logo
