On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 02:35:21AM +0100, Steffen Möller wrote:
>
> We are packaging software, not workflows (at the very moment, mostly).
> Anybody
> requesting tophat shall get exactly that, however unfortunate that decision
> may be.
Fair enough.
> I am happy with a post-inst warning, or a
Hello,
On 16.12.17 22:15, Andreas Tille wrote:
Hi Afif,
On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 12:31:28PM -0800, Afif Elghraoui wrote:
Since I'm not a user of all this software I do not have any objections.
However, I wonder whether we should provide kind of a sensible
"migration path" and add "Replaces:
On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 04:49:48PM +, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> Le 17/12/17 à 15:40, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
>...
> > Unaligned floating point access on armhf is expected to fail,
> > and that's exactly what happens here:
> > unknown location(0): fatal error: in
> >
Le 17/12/17 à 15:40, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 02:33:03PM +, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
ISMRMRD uses a non-portable instruction (#pragma pack) which modifies the
memory alignment of its data structures. It seems neither armhf nor sparc64
supports it, hence the failure of
On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 02:33:03PM +, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> ISMRMRD uses a non-portable instruction (#pragma pack) which modifies the
> memory alignment of its data structures. It seems neither armhf nor sparc64
> supports it, hence the failure of the test suite for both architectures.
ISMRMRD uses a non-portable instruction (#pragma pack) which modifies
the memory alignment of its data structures. It seems neither armhf nor
sparc64 supports it, hence the failure of the test suite for both
architectures.
I am not sure what the best course of action is. Either leaving things
6 matches
Mail list logo
