On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 03:00:54PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 07:40:28PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 07:20:40PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 02:32:51PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > > * Pierre Habouzit (mad
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 07:40:28PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 07:20:40PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 02:32:51PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * Pierre Habouzit (madco...@madism.org) [090919 01:08]:
> > > > I'll put blocks in my hint fil
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 07:20:40PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 02:32:51PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Pierre Habouzit (madco...@madism.org) [090919 01:08]:
> > > I'll put blocks in my hint file to be sure that both those packages will
> > > migrate in testing toget
On 2009-09-19 19:20 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 02:32:51PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> * Pierre Habouzit (madco...@madism.org) [090919 01:08]:
>> > I'll put blocks in my hint file to be sure that both those packages will
>> > migrate in testing together (I'm unsure i
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 02:32:51PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Pierre Habouzit (madco...@madism.org) [090919 01:08]:
> > I'll put blocks in my hint file to be sure that both those packages will
> > migrate in testing together (I'm unsure if britney is clever enough to
> > block them until all t
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 05:05:11PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Actually I tried to build it twice and it failed with "disk full" error.
Anyway, when hacking around the build-dep problem openoffice.org builds with
libjpeg7-dev. Didn't try the "working" part yet as I only tried with a 3.2
snapsho
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 04:56:11PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 04:45:23PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> > There's no reason for skipping openoffice.org. And openoffice.org is a clear
>
> Actually, there is, as installing libjpeg7-dev would break some of OOos
>
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 04:45:23PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 02:11:30PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > 2) Package too large to be tested:
> > openoffice.org: too large
>
> Nonsense. You could speed up the build and make it use less
> hd space like we do for
Hi,
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 04:45:23PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> There's no reason for skipping openoffice.org. And openoffice.org is a clear
Actually, there is, as installing libjpeg7-dev would break some of OOos
r-b-deps...
Will try hack around this for trying a build with libjpeg7
(it's
Hi,
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 02:11:30PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> 2) Package too large to be tested:
> openoffice.org: too large
Nonsense. You could speed up the build and make it use less
hd space like we do for buildd builds (lang=en-US). That's visible
from the source package. (Still build
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Pierre Habouzit (madco...@madism.org) [090919 01:08]:
> > I'll put blocks in my hint file to be sure that both those packages will
> > migrate in testing together (I'm unsure if britney is clever enough to
> > block them until all the binNMUs are done,
* Pierre Habouzit (madco...@madism.org) [090919 01:08]:
> I'll put blocks in my hint file to be sure that both those packages will
> migrate in testing together (I'm unsure if britney is clever enough to
> block them until all the binNMUs are done, I don't think it is). Then
> please ask for binNMU
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 01:01:38PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 11:47:35AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Actually, I have already done a test-rebuild of all the packages that
> > build-depends on libjpeg62-dev or libjpeg-dev against a modified
> > libjpeg7-dev
> > tha
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 01:01:38PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 11:47:35AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 01:08:12AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 12:04:32AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > > Dear developers,
> >
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 11:47:35AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 01:08:12AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 12:04:32AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > Dear developers,
> > >
> > > There is a new version of libjpeg in the archive (JPEG7), but is
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 01:08:12AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 12:04:32AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Dear developers,
> >
> > There is a new version of libjpeg in the archive (JPEG7), but is it
> > not yet cleared for building packages against it.
> >
> > If your
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 12:04:32AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Dear developers,
>
> There is a new version of libjpeg in the archive (JPEG7), but is it
> not yet cleared for building packages against it.
>
> If your package Build-Depends on libjpeg62-dev, please change to 'libjpeg-dev'
> (with
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 12:04:32AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Dear developers,
>
> There is a new version of libjpeg in the archive (JPEG7), but is it
> not yet cleared for building packages against it.
>
> If your package Build-Depends on libjpeg62-dev, please change to 'libjpeg-dev'
> (with
Dear developers,
There is a new version of libjpeg in the archive (JPEG7), but is it
not yet cleared for building packages against it.
If your package Build-Depends on libjpeg62-dev, please change to 'libjpeg-dev'
(without the 62) to ease the transition.
Cheers,
--
Bill.
Imagine a large red s
19 matches
Mail list logo
