On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 3:05 PM Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 02:57:07PM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 2:54 PM Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 02:49:37PM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> > > > Control: severity -1 important
> > > >
> > > >
On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 02:57:07PM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 2:54 PM Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 02:49:37PM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> > > Control: severity -1 important
> > >
> > > Since gtkmm4.0 is new to Debian, a broken autopkgtest isn't a
> > >
On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 2:54 PM Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 02:49:37PM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> > Control: severity -1 important
> >
> > Since gtkmm4.0 is new to Debian, a broken autopkgtest isn't a
> > regression and doesn't block migration to Testing.
I think that's a bug
On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 02:49:37PM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> Control: severity -1 important
>
> Since gtkmm4.0 is new to Debian, a broken autopkgtest isn't a
> regression and doesn't block migration to Testing.
>...
That's not true:
https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/gtkmm4.0
> Thank you,
>
Control: severity -1 important
Since gtkmm4.0 is new to Debian, a broken autopkgtest isn't a
regression and doesn't block migration to Testing.
I've fixed the one line seen in the autopkgtest failure, but…
We need to either port the minimal gtkmm app to gtkmm4 or drop it and
just use the
Source: gtkmm4.0
Version: 4.8.0-2
Severity: serious
https://ci.debian.net/data/autopkgtest/testing/amd64/g/gtkmm4.0/26657367/log.gz
...
autopkgtest [03:40:13]: test build: [---
+ mktemp -d
+ WORKDIR=/tmp/tmp.aaoH7slRso
+ trap rm -rf /tmp/tmp.aaoH7slRso 0 INT QUIT ABRT PIPE
6 matches
Mail list logo
