On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 06:53:30AM -0600, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 11:03:34AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > > * Dirk Eddelbuettel (edd@debian.org) [041203 22:45]: > > > On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 11:19:18AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > > * Dirk Eddelbuettel (edd@debian.org) [041203 06:15]: > > > > > I think Richard is basically correct in his analysis. Bjorn's page lists > > > > > > > > > > octave2.1 > > > > > octave-forge > > > > > octave-sp [ source package semidef-oct ] > > > > > > > > > > as mutually blocking themselves on Alpha -- but buildd.debian.org shows that > > > > > all packages have built correctly. > > > > > > > > I added an easy hint. Thanks for drawing our attention on it. > > > > > Any idea when the "hint" would result in an actual transfer to testing? > > > > I forget to add also ginac to that hint; should be working tonight, but > Can you explain to me where the ginac issue arose, i.e. what create the > circle? Is there anything I can do better as Octave, octave-forge, > octave-sp maintainer? > > in any case, I will follow up that hint until it works (means: I will > > look daily into it, until it works, and if it takes too long, I'll also > > work with simulation runs). [And that is the strategy with any hint - as > > soon as I pick it up, I will make sure that it actually works.] > Ok -- I really appreciate that. > Now, to make matters worse, I actually uploaded octave 2.1.64 last evening. > Does that screw everything up, or can you push 2.1.63 and its dependents > through before 2.1.64 comes into the archive? Sorry, the testing scripts run once a day, just like dinstall. The packages you uploaded will be installed at dinstall, so the next testing script run will see 2.1.64 and refuse to allow it into testing (too new, plus being out of date on some archs). -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature