Martin-Éric Racine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, this is the second time that installation of tetex fails on hppa.
According to the tetex maintainer, everything is kosher on his side, so
this brings the question why installation of tetex repeatedly fails and
only on hppa. Repeated
Thibaut VARENE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/6/06, Martin-Éric Racine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
pe, 2006-01-06 kello 11:51 -0500, Kyle McMartin kirjoitti:
Well, this is the second time that installation of tetex fails on hppa.
According to the tetex maintainer, everything is kosher on his
ma, 2006-01-09 kello 10:10 +0100, Frank Küster kirjoitti:
Thibaut VARENE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/6/06, Martin-Éric Racine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
pe, 2006-01-06 kello 11:51 -0500, Kyle McMartin kirjoitti:
Well, this is the second time that installation of tetex fails on hppa.
Martin-Éric Racine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ma, 2006-01-09 kello 10:10 +0100, Frank Küster kirjoitti:
Of course it does - one more reason to believe that the problem is on
the side of that particular machine: Hardware problems on sarti.
I think that it's not likely a hardware problem as
pe, 2005-12-23 kello 17:23 +0100, Frank Küster kirjoitti:
Hi Lamont, hi Debian admins,
during the last weeks there were a couple of FTBFS cases on sarti, the
hppa buildd, which point to severe problems on that machine. The things
that happened did only happen on this single buildd, but did
On 1/6/06, Martin-Éric Racine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Anyhow, given how hppa is already among the architectures that did not
re-qualify for Etch, I propose that, from now on, hppa be ignored for
deciding whether a package is considered valid for going into Testing.
I believe that you
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 02:18:38PM +0200, Martin-?ric Racine wrote:
Anyhow, given how hppa is already among the architectures that did not
re-qualify for Etch, I propose that, from now on, hppa be ignored for
deciding whether a package is considered valid for going into Testing.
Uhm. You're
pe, 2006-01-06 kello 11:51 -0500, Kyle McMartin kirjoitti:
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 02:18:38PM +0200, Martin-?ric Racine wrote:
Anyhow, given how hppa is already among the architectures that did not
re-qualify for Etch, I propose that, from now on, hppa be ignored for
deciding whether a
On 1/6/06, Martin-Éric Racine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
pe, 2006-01-06 kello 11:51 -0500, Kyle McMartin kirjoitti:
Well, this is the second time that installation of tetex fails on hppa.
According to the tetex maintainer, everything is kosher on his side, so
this brings the question why
pe, 2006-01-06 kello 17:30 -0700, Bdale Garbee kirjoitti:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin-Éric Racine) writes:
To me it looks as if there were hardware problems.
I don't see how you reach that conclusion?
Please read and quote carefully.
That sentence was by Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 2006-01-07 at 02:40 +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
pe, 2006-01-06 kello 17:30 -0700, Bdale Garbee kirjoitti:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin-Éric Racine) writes:
To me it looks as if there were hardware problems.
I don't see how you reach that conclusion?
Please read and
severity 344538 important
thanks
Hi Lamont, hi Debian admins,
during the last weeks there were a couple of FTBFS cases on sarti, the
hppa buildd, which point to severe problems on that machine. The things
that happened did only happen on this single buildd, but did in no way
look as if they
12 matches
Mail list logo
