Source: vls
Version: 0.5.4+cvs20031028-9
Severity: serious
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: qa-ftbfs-20091210 qa-ftbfs
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build on
amd64.
Relevant part:
g++ -g -O2 -Wall -O2 -o vls
Am Freitag, den 11.12.2009, 09:07 +0100 schrieb Lucas Nussbaum:
Source: mediatomb
Version: 0.12.0~svn2018-4
Severity: serious
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: qa-ftbfs-20091210 qa-ftbfs
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package
Hi Adrian,
|--== On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:22:31 +0100, Adrian Knoth
a...@drcomp.erfurt.thur.de said:
AK On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 06:37:11PM +0100, Free Ekanayaka wrote:
Hi Adrian,
AK Hi!
AK [jackd2]
Great job! I've been trying it and looks very stable. Do you think it's
possible to
Source: clxclient
Version: 3.6.1-1
Severity: serious
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: qa-ftbfs-20091210 qa-ftbfs
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build on
amd64.
Relevant part:
make[1]: Entering directory
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 01:33:18PM +0100, Free Ekanayaka wrote:
Hi Adrian,
Hi!
Thanks for having changed this! I'm not too convinced by the idea of not
including the 32bit library, I guess it would be handy for some users
and it wouldn't hurt the others.
I must confess I'm not up-to-date
FYI: The status of the ffprobe source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
Previous version: 0+svn92-1
Current version: 0.svn92-1
--
This email is automatically generated once a day. As the installation of
new packages into testing happens multiple times a day you will
2009/12/11 Fabian Greffrath greffr...@leat.rub.de:
Am 11.12.2009 08:21, schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
I don't think Fabian really disagreed with using branches for
changes. Actually, I do not at all and use local branches rather often.
Yep, using branches is fine and recommended, but I don't
Le Fri 11 Dec 09 à 23:59 +0100, Loïc Minier a écrit :
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009, Loïc Minier wrote:
Yes, removal definitely makes sense; this is a dead project upstream.
I think a company might be maintaining a fork, but I doubt anybody
still uses vls nor anybody could support it at this
