Your message dated Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:40:12 +0100 with message-id <[🔎] 20080110084012.GD13362@localhost> and subject line [Pkg-octave-devel] Bug#459950: Bug#459950: octave3.0-headers: the package should be Architecture: all has caused the attached Bug report 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 I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
- Subject: octave3.0-headers: the package should be Architecture: all
- From: Torsten Werner <twerner@debian.org>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 21:09:26 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20080109200923.GA465@twerner42.de>
Package: octave3.0-headers Severity: normal Version: 3.0.0-1 Hi, I think there is no point in being Architecture: any. Cheers, Torsten
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- To: pkg-octave-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
- Cc: 459950-done@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] Bug#459950: Bug#459950: octave3.0-headers: the package should be Architecture: all
- From: Rafael Laboissiere <rafael@debian.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:40:12 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20080110084012.GD13362@localhost>
- Mail-followup-to: pkg-octave-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org, 459950-done@bugs.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 1199950382.23293.6.camel@localhost>
- References: <[🔎] 20080109200923.GA465@twerner42.de> <[🔎] 20080109213338.GC27977@localhost> <[🔎] 1199950382.23293.6.camel@localhost>
* Thomas Weber <thomas.weber.mail@gmail.com> [2008-01-10 08:33]: > Am Mittwoch, den 09.01.2008, 22:33 +0100 schrieb Rafael Laboissiere: > > * Torsten Werner <twerner@debian.org> [2008-01-09 21:09]: > > > I think there is no point in being Architecture: any. > > I think you are right. The next release will have Architecture: all. > > I disagree, at least mkoctfile has different values depending on the > architecture: > > ================================================================== > $ diff sid32/usr/bin/mkoctfile-3.0.0 sid64/usr/bin/mkoctfile-3.0.0 > 82,83c82,83 > < : ${XTRA_CFLAGS="-mieee-fp"} > < : ${XTRA_CXXFLAGS="-mieee-fp"} > --- > > : ${XTRA_CFLAGS=""} > > : ${XTRA_CXXFLAGS=""} > 100c100 > < : ${FLIBS="-L/usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/3.4.6 > -L/usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/3.4.6/../../../../lib > -L/usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/3.4.6/../../.. -L/lib/../lib > -L/usr/lib/../lib -lhdf5 -lz -lfrtbegin -lg2c -lm"} > --- > > : ${FLIBS="-L/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/3.4.6 > -L/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/3.4.6/../../../../lib > -L/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/3.4.6/../../.. -L/lib/../lib > -L/usr/lib/../lib -lhdf5 -lz -lfrtbegin -lg2c -lm"} > ================================================================== Oops, I have overseen this. This explains why this package was Architecture: any to start with. I already reverted my changes in SVN and am hereby closing this bug report. -- Rafael
--- End Message ---