To address bug #793845, I prepared 2.0.0-2.
I'll look into it and upload it on the upcoming weekend :) Thank you
for the investigation.
After some fiddling with the build I've something that builds and has
a sane diff, but I'd rather like to turn the urgency back down from
high to medium. I
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 04:11:34PM +0200, Stefan Sobernig wrote:
Hi,
As far as I can see we're only dealing with the FTBFS.
This is fine with me, I had the misconception that an FTBFS warrants a
high. But I was clearly wrong, the package is not even in testing.
Ok uploaded. Thanks Stefan.
nsf_2.0.0-2_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
nsf_2.0.0-2.dsc
nsf_2.0.0-2.debian.tar.xz
nsf-dev_2.0.0-2_amd64.deb
nsf-shells_2.0.0-2_all.deb
nsf_2.0.0-2_amd64.deb
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host franck.debian.org)
Your message dated Fri, 31 Jul 2015 15:41:17 +
with message-id e1zlcqv-0003fx...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#793845: fixed in nsf 2.0.0-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #793845,
regarding nsf: FTBFS on Linux due to test suite errors
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Stefan Sobernig stefan.sober...@wu.ac.at writes:
I would still appreciate it if you could test on abel.
I did just now, and had a successful build there too. I wonder what
went wrong originally.
Anyway, thanks again!
--
Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org)
Thx for this help! Did you test on the very same buildd/porterbox
which reports the issue: hasse.debian.org; or any other armhf/mipsel
box?
I don't have access to the autobuilders, on which logins are restricted
to their actual maintainers. Rather, my test builds were on
harris.debian.org
