[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#808874: marked as done (debian-installer: FTBFS on i386: 586 vs. 686)

Your message dated Sun, 20 Nov 2016 03:00:05 +0100
with message-id <20161120020005.GA14201@mraw.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#808874: debian-installer: FTBFS on i386: 586 vs. 686
has caused the Debian Bug report #808874,
regarding debian-installer: FTBFS on i386: 586 vs. 686
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org

808874: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=808874
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Source: debian-installer
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS


linux received this change a while ago, and it has now reached
unstable and testing:
| linux (4.3~rc3-1~exp1) experimental; urgency=medium
| […]
|   * [i386] Replace 586 flavour with 686
|     - Enable support for OLPC and other Geode-based systems in the 686 flavour
|     - udeb: Update kernel-versions
|  -- Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>  Sun, 27 Sep 2015 21:02:54 +0100

so d-i no longer builds on i386. A few packages have to be tweaked for
this kind of changes; I'm x-d-cc-ing the kernel team as Ben did most of
the work past time.


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 20160101

Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk> (2016-02-21):
> It looks like the 20160101 upload included relevant changes, and built
> happily on i386. Is there anything remaining to fix?

In the “better late than never” category: I think we're all set.

(I had forgotten I uploaded that on Jan 01… :D)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

--- End Message ---

Reply to: