Hi Andreas,
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi Julien,
>
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 10:49:10AM +0200, Julien Yann Dutheil wrote:
> > Yes, should be. But I noticed some other problems... I have made a
> version
> > 1.0.2 addressing them. Then I
Hi Julien,
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 10:49:10AM +0200, Julien Yann Dutheil wrote:
> Yes, should be. But I noticed some other problems... I have made a version
> 1.0.2 addressing them. Then I synchronized the upstream branch accordingly,
> and then merged the master branch and the upstream branch,
Dear Andreas,
Yes, should be. But I noticed some other problems... I have made a version
1.0.2 addressing them. Then I synchronized the upstream branch accordingly,
and then merged the master branch and the upstream branch, is that the
correct way to do? Version 1.0.2-1 should then normally build
Hi Julien,
I guess this issue is connected to our latest changes in the library
packages.
Kind regards
Andreas.
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 05:52:18PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Source: physamp
> Version: 0.2.0-1
> Severity: serious
> Tags: buster sid
> User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Source: physamp
Version: 0.2.0-1
Severity: serious
Tags: buster sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: qa-ftbfs-20170719 qa-ftbfs
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build on
amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
> cd
5 matches
Mail list logo