Hi Paul,
On 28 May 2020 at 08:23, Paul Gevers wrote:
| Hi Dirk,
|
| On 28-05-2020 01:14, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > Shall I close this one 'by hand'? Or will it get closed by migrating
| > quantlib-swig? I just close the other one (#956830) that was at the start
of
| > this by hand.
|
|
Hi Dirk,
On 28-05-2020 01:14, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> Shall I close this one 'by hand'? Or will it get closed by migrating
> quantlib-swig? I just close the other one (#956830) that was at the start of
> this by hand.
I closed the bug the moment I filed it. Albeit that's a bit weird, I
have
Paul,
Shall I close this one 'by hand'? Or will it get closed by migrating
quantlib-swig? I just close the other one (#956830) that was at the start of
this by hand.
Best, Dirk
--
http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org
Paul,
Thanks for the hint. The package for mipsel is now gone, migration of
quantlib-python should now resume.
Leaves the second part. Come to think about it I have never written an
debian/rules to _not_ build something. So maybe something like
ifneq "$(findstring $(cpu), mipsel)"
Hi Paul,
On 24 May 2020 at 20:31, Paul Gevers wrote:
| Hi Dirk,
|
| On 24-05-2020 20:19, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > Hm. Easy to implement but won't it create a permanent 'fail' on that
platform?
| > (But then maybe that is the goal once I ask the release team to drop the old
| > binary...)
Hi Dirk,
On 24-05-2020 20:19, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> Hm. Easy to implement but won't it create a permanent 'fail' on that platform?
> (But then maybe that is the goal once I ask the release team to drop the old
> binary...)
That's exactly what I meant. What did you think I meant?
Paul
Hi Paul,
On 24 May 2020 at 19:54, Paul Gevers wrote:
| Hi Dirk,
|
| On 24-05-2020 19:09, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > But how I prevent the build in the future?
| >
| > Via 'Architecture: any [!xyx]' ? Last I checked I though we had no such
| > explicit white/black listing mechanisms (but
Hi Dirk,
On 24-05-2020 19:09, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> But how I prevent the build in the future?
>
> Via 'Architecture: any [!xyx]' ? Last I checked I though we had no such
> explicit white/black listing mechanisms (but then I may have forgotten...)
I also don't think blacklisting exists. I
On 24 May 2020 at 18:47, Paul Gevers wrote:
| Hi Dirk,
|
| On 24-05-2020 13:43, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > This used to build. It just takes a long as it is a library with old-school
| > many templates "big C++".
| >
| > There is nothing I can do here. If it ends being removed because nobody
Hi Dirk,
On 24-05-2020 13:43, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> This used to build. It just takes a long as it is a library with old-school
> many templates "big C++".
>
> There is nothing I can do here. If it ends being removed because nobody can
> change the build toggle on that platform so be it.
>
On 24 May 2020 at 07:57, Paul Gevers wrote:
| Source: quantlib-swig
| Version: 1.17-1
| Severity: serious
| Control: close -1 1.18-1
| Tags: sid bullseye
| User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
| Usertags: out-of-sync
|
| Dear maintainer(s),
|
| As recently announced [1], the Release
Source: quantlib-swig
Version: 1.17-1
Severity: serious
Control: close -1 1.18-1
Tags: sid bullseye
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: out-of-sync
Dear maintainer(s),
As recently announced [1], the Release Team now considers packages that
are out-of-sync between testing and
12 matches
Mail list logo
