ruby-fastimage_2.1.1-1_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
ruby-fastimage_2.1.1-1.dsc
ruby-fastimage_2.1.1.orig.tar.gz
ruby-fastimage_2.1.1-1.debian.tar.xz
ruby-fastimage_2.1.1-1_all.deb
ruby-fastimage_2.1.1-1_amd64.buildinfo
Greetings,
Your De
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 15:50:12 +0900
Source: ruby-fastimage
Binary: ruby-fastimage
Architecture: source all
Version: 2.1.1-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian Ruby Extras Maintainers
Changed-By: You
Source: ruby-fastimage
Version: 2.1.1-1
Severity: serious
https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/rb-pkg/unstable/amd64/ruby-fastimage.html
...
┌──┐
│ Run tests for ruby2.5 from debian/ruby-test-files.yaml
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Format: 1.8
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 15:52:00 -0700
Source: asciidoctor
Binary: ruby-asciidoctor asciidoctor asciidoctor-doc
Architecture: source all amd64
Version: 1.5.6.2-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian Ruby Extr
Your message dated Fri, 13 Apr 2018 13:00:11 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#893467: fixed in asciidoctor 1.5.6.2-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #893467,
regarding split asciidoctor into ruby-asciidoctor
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been deal
Your message dated Fri, 13 Apr 2018 13:00:11 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#884213: fixed in asciidoctor 1.5.6.2-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #884213,
regarding asciidoctor: New version with substantial fixes and improvements
released
to be marked as done.
This means that you c
Source: asciidoctor
Version: 1.5.6.2-1
Severity: serious
https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=asciidoctor&suite=sid
...
┌──┐
│ Run tests for ruby2.5 from debian/ruby-tests.rake│
└
Hi Adrien,
Thanks for reporting. I was looking into it already.
My only problem is that I can't reproduce it when using sbuild in my
gbp buildpackage locally. I tried with different parameters but can't
understand why.
The missing files should have been installed by dh_install as they are
defined
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 07:23:38AM -0700, Joseph Herlant wrote:
> Hi Adrien,
>
> Thanks for reporting. I was looking into it already.
> My only problem is that I can't reproduce it when using sbuild in my
> gbp buildpackage locally. I tried with different parameters but can't
> understand why.
I
Thanks a lot for the quick answer! :)
> I can reproduce in a chroot with "dpkg-buildpackage -B"
> (there's likely some way to do the same in sbuild).
I'm now able to reproduce it with the following flags: `--arch-any
--no-arch-all`
I'll try to fix it this morning.
Thanks for the help!
Joseph
__
10 matches
Mail list logo