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

Bug#1065069: marked as done (apt-move rebuilt with the wrong ABI on 32-bit architectures)

Your message dated Tue, 16 Apr 2024 21:02:22 +0200
with message-id <af9d1714-b8ee-b563-0194-17f67ea8de6a@debian.org>
and subject line Re: apt-move rebuilt with the wrong ABI on 32-bit architectures
has caused the Debian Bug report #1065069,
regarding apt-move rebuilt with the wrong ABI on 32-bit architectures
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
immediately.)


-- 
1065069: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1065069
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Source: apt-move
Version: 4.2.27-6+b1
Severity: serious
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-release@lists.debian.org

apt-move has been binNMUed for the time64_t transition. However due to
the lack of extra-depends and the impossibility to recreate chroots on
the buildd, it has been built with pre time64_t version of dpkg and
gcc-13, probably leading to the wrong ABI.

See for instance:
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=apt-move&arch=armel&ver=4.2.27-6%2Bb1&stamp=1709156067&raw=0

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 12:15:53 +0100 Aurelien Jarno <aurel32@debian.org> wrote: 
apt-move has been binNMUed for the time64_t transition. However due to
the lack of extra-depends and the impossibility to recreate chroots on
the buildd, it has been built with pre time64_t version of dpkg and
gcc-13, probably leading to the wrong ABI.

See for instance:
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=apt-move&arch=armel&ver=4.2.27-6%2Bb1&stamp=1709156067&raw=0


binNMUed again.

Andreas

--- End Message ---
Reply to: