Re: Rebuild of the Debian archive with clang
- To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Rebuild of the Debian archive with clang
- From: Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org>
- Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 21:22:02 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] m3sjhst6l1.fsf@neo.luffy.cx>
- Mail-followup-to: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <1330532398.24310.150.camel@pomegues.inria.fr> (Sylvestre Ledru's message of "Wed, 29 Feb 2012 17:19:58 +0100")
- References: <1330519665.24310.125.camel@pomegues.inria.fr> <20120229160759.GD8905@belkar.wrar.name> <1330532398.24310.150.camel@pomegues.inria.fr>
OoO Lors de la soirée naissante du mercredi 29 février 2012, vers 17:19,
Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@debian.org> disait :
> If you are looking for the raw list, I published the files:
> 2.9:
> http://clang.debian.net/scanlog-2.9-2011-09-11
> 3.0:
> http://clang.debian.net/scanlog-3.0-2012-01-12
Is it possible to find why a package has not been considered to be
built?
--
Vincent Bernat ☯ http://vincent.bernat.im
printk("What? oldfid != cii->c_fid. Call 911.\n");
2.4.3 linux/fs/coda/cnode.c
Attachment:
pgpsoINoaOU1G.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Reply to: