On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 04:43:55PM +0100, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 13/12/2020 à 00:38, Markus Koschany a écrit :
>
> > In this case I believe the RC severity is correct because the arch:any or
> > jni
> > version of the package FTBFS on ppc64el. We should try to fix the problem on
> > ppc64el o
Le 13/12/2020 à 00:38, Markus Koschany a écrit :
> In this case I believe the RC severity is correct because the arch:any or jni
> version of the package FTBFS on ppc64el. We should try to fix the problem on
> ppc64el or, if upstream doesn't support ppc64el, remove the architecture from
> the list
On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 09:41:34 +0100 Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Source: service-wrapper-java
> Version: 3.5.30-1
> Severity: serious
> Justification: FTBFS on ppc64el
> Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
> Usertags: ftbfs-20201209 ftbfs-bullseye ftbfs-ppc64el
>
> Hi,
>
> During a rebuild of all packages in sid,
Source: service-wrapper-java
Version: 3.5.30-1
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS on ppc64el
Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
Usertags: ftbfs-20201209 ftbfs-bullseye ftbfs-ppc64el
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
on ppc64el. At the same time, it did not fail o
4 matches
Mail list logo