Bug#841724: jessie-pu: package guile-2.0/2.0.11+1-9

"Adam D. Barratt" writes: > For the record, I retried the build this evening with an explicit > dependency on the new glibc version (as otherwise it won't get > automagically upgraded in the chroot) and it built successfully. Excellent. -- Rob Browning rlb

Bug#841724: jessie-pu: package guile-2.0/2.0.11+1-9

On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 08:20 -0500, Rob Browning wrote: > "Adam D. Barratt" writes: > > > That glibc version got accepted last night, so hopefully we'll be in a > > position to retry the guile-2.0 build later on. > > Great. Please let me know if I can help further.

Bug#841724: jessie-pu: package guile-2.0/2.0.11+1-9

"Adam D. Barratt" writes: > That glibc version got accepted last night, so hopefully we'll be in a > position to retry the guile-2.0 build later on. Great. Please let me know if I can help further. Thanks -- Rob Browning rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org GPG as

Bug#841724: jessie-pu: package guile-2.0/2.0.11+1-9

On Tue, 2017-04-25 at 23:23 -0500, Rob Browning wrote: > Rob Browning writes: > > > I'll try to get some time this week to run the tests on a porterbox -- > > see if I can reproduce the problem there. > > I was able to reproduce the problem on partch, and then poked

Bug#841724: jessie-pu: package guile-2.0/2.0.11+1-9

Rob Browning writes: > I'll try to get some time this week to run the tests on a porterbox -- > see if I can reproduce the problem there. I was able to reproduce the problem on partch, and then poked around a bit. It looks like this might be a glibc bug that's addressed

Bug#841724: jessie-pu: package guile-2.0/2.0.11+1-9

Rob Browning writes: > Rob Browning writes: > >> "Adam D. Barratt" writes: >> >>> On Sun, 2017-01-29 at 22:06 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Sat, 2017-01-28 at 11:48 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > Uploaded and

Bug#841724: jessie-pu: package guile-2.0/2.0.11+1-9

Rob Browning writes: > "Adam D. Barratt" writes: > >> On Sun, 2017-01-29 at 22:06 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: >>> On Sat, 2017-01-28 at 11:48 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: >>> > Uploaded and flagged for acceptance. >>> >>> Unfortunately the

Bug#841724: jessie-pu: package guile-2.0/2.0.11+1-9

"Adam D. Barratt" writes: > On Sun, 2017-01-29 at 22:06 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: >> On Sat, 2017-01-28 at 11:48 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: >> > Uploaded and flagged for acceptance. >> >> Unfortunately the powerpc build FTBFS in the "check-guile" test. >> >>

Bug#841724: jessie-pu: package guile-2.0/2.0.11+1-9

On Sun, 2017-01-29 at 22:06 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Sat, 2017-01-28 at 11:48 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > Uploaded and flagged for acceptance. > > Unfortunately the powerpc build FTBFS in the "check-guile" test. > > The build log for the most recent attempt can be found at >

Bug#841724: jessie-pu: package guile-2.0/2.0.11+1-9

On Sat, 2017-01-28 at 11:48 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > Uploaded and flagged for acceptance. Unfortunately the powerpc build FTBFS in the "check-guile" test. The build log for the most recent attempt can be found at

Bug#841724: jessie-pu: package guile-2.0/2.0.11+1-9

Control: tags -1 + pending On Sat, 2017-01-14 at 20:14 +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > Hi Rob, > > On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 12:58:10PM -0600, Rob Browning wrote: > > Salvatore Bonaccorso writes: > > > > > Any news on that upload? > > > > I should be able to handle it

Bug#841724: jessie-pu: package guile-2.0/2.0.11+1-9

Hi Rob, On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 12:58:10PM -0600, Rob Browning wrote: > Salvatore Bonaccorso writes: > > > Any news on that upload? > > I should be able to handle it before Tuesday, but let me make sure I > understand what's desired. We're talking about the

Bug#841724: jessie-pu: package guile-2.0/2.0.11+1-9

Salvatore Bonaccorso writes: > Any news on that upload? I should be able to handle it before Tuesday, but let me make sure I understand what's desired. We're talking about the 2.0.11+1-9+deb8u1 changes I initially proposed? Thanks -- Rob Browning rlb @defaultvalue.org and

Bug#841724: jessie-pu: package guile-2.0/2.0.11+1-9

Hi Rob, On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 08:11:21PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > Control: tags -1 -moreinfo +confirmed > > On Sat, 2016-10-22 at 14:11 -0500, Rob Browning wrote: > > "Adam D. Barratt" writes: > > > > > Control: tags -1 + moreinfo > > > Control: severity -1

Bug#841724: jessie-pu: package guile-2.0/2.0.11+1-9

Control: tags -1 -moreinfo +confirmed On Sat, 2016-10-22 at 14:11 -0500, Rob Browning wrote: > "Adam D. Barratt" writes: > > > Control: tags -1 + moreinfo > > Control: severity -1 normal > > > > On Sat, 2016-10-22 at 13:10 -0500, Rob Browning wrote: > >> I'd like to

Bug#841724: jessie-pu: package guile-2.0/2.0.11+1-9

"Adam D. Barratt" writes: > Control: tags -1 + moreinfo > Control: severity -1 normal > > On Sat, 2016-10-22 at 13:10 -0500, Rob Browning wrote: >> I'd like to propose an update for jessie as described by the attached >> debdiff. Though the final upload/diff might be

Bug#841724: jessie-pu: package guile-2.0/2.0.11+1-9

Control: tags -1 + moreinfo Control: severity -1 normal On Sat, 2016-10-22 at 13:10 -0500, Rob Browning wrote: > I'd like to propose an update for jessie as described by the attached > debdiff. Though the final upload/diff might be slightly different > (i.e. the dpm hashes). > > Both of the

Bug#841724: jessie-pu: package guile-2.0/2.0.11+1-9

Package: release.debian.org Severity: important Tags: jessie User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: pu I'd like to propose an update for jessie as described by the attached debdiff. Though the final upload/diff might be slightly different (i.e. the dpm hashes). Both of the