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

Bug#709813: marked as done (transition: enet)

Your message dated Wed, 3 Jul 2013 19:11:38 +0200
with message-id <20130703171138.GI28839@betterave.cristau.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#709813: transition: enet
has caused the Debian Bug report #709813,
regarding transition: enet
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.)


-- 
709813: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=709813
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition

I would like to upgrade enet in unstable to 1.3.7 which means a soname
change. The new package is already uploaded to experimental and waiting
for buildds to become available.

Rebuilding the rdeps in main worked fine (0ad, blockattack, python-enet,
supertuxkart). There are two more rdeps in contrib which I didn't try to
rebuild (redeclipse, sandboxgamemaker).

Ben file:

title = "enet";
is_affected = .depends ~ "libenet1a" | .depends ~ "libenet2a";
is_good = .depends ~ "libenet2a";
is_bad = .depends ~ "libenet1a";

Ansgar

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:46:20 +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:

> On 06/15/2013 00:23, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 08:51:18 +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> >> Uploaded yesterday evening and already built for all archs (although
> >> the kfreebsd-i386 build is still pending upload for some reason).
> >>
> > Scheduled binNMUs for the rdeps.
> 
> All packages were build successfully with two exceptions:
> 
> 0ad_amd64
> ---------
> Failed with illegal instruction.
> 
> The maintainer is aware, but a first look didn't find the problem. -msse
> is passed to gcc, but that shouldn't be a problem for amd64.
> It also builds fine on the maintainer's computer which doesn't make
> finding the problem easier.
> 
> This is probably not a regression, so maybe try to get it build on a
> different buildd and file a bug for now? Then the transition could at
> least finish.
> 
AIUI that happened, then it got blocked by libxml2, and now libxml2's RC
bug has been downgraded so it's all in testing.

Cheers,
Julien

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: