Is there any chance that there will be a gutsy backport?
--
FTBFS: asterisk_1:1.4.13~dfsg-1 on hardy/i386
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/163533
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bu
new ->fix released
new version has built on hardy/i386
** Changed in: asterisk (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Fix Released
--
FTBFS: asterisk_1:1.4.13~dfsg-1 on hardy/i386
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/163533
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is
This looks like it's fixed.
https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/asterisk/1:1.4.17~dfsg-2 says
that 1:1.4.17~dfsg-2 built for everything except lpia
I presume that asterisk_1:1.4.13~dfsg-1 is now obsolete, replaced by
1:1.4.17~dfsg-2
--
FTBFS: asterisk_1:1.4.13~dfsg-1 on hardy/i386
ht
Nope. That kind of QA does not exist which is why I started some tests
to hunt these bugs.
Packages without an Ubuntu delta are synced from Debian *and published*
as long as we are not after import freeze. I.e. the packages may FTBFS
even on the buildds and we might not notice it.
--
FTBFS: as
Uhm, yeah. And even if you disable the h323 stuff it fails further on
due to trying to include some "bristuff" headers that don't seem to
exist in either hardy or gutsy.
Can we get this mess cleaned up?
How did an FTBFS package get uploaded? Isn't there some kind of "must
at least build" gate o
** Attachment added: "build log"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/10459871/asterisk.log
--
FTBFS: asterisk_1:1.4.13~dfsg-1 on hardy/i386
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/163533
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu.
--
ub
