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

Bug#795288: marked as done (nmu: libsigc++-2.0_2.4.1-2)

Your message dated Fri, 4 Sep 2015 21:33:15 +0100
with message-id <20150904203315.GC3962@rano.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#795288: nmu: libsigc++-2.0_2.4.1-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #795288,
regarding nmu:  libsigc++-2.0_2.4.1-2
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.)


-- 
795288: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=795288
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Source: libsigc++-2.0
Version: 2.4.1-2

Looking at the build logs at
https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=libsigc%2B%2B-2.0&suite=sid
I note that on arm64 this package was built with build-essential_11.7
and g++-4.9, unlike on the other architectures, which used g++-5. Is
this deliberate, or an accident resulting from some kind of lagginess?
If it's the latter, is there an easy way of detecting which other
packages might be affected?

(This isn't really a bug in the source package, but I can see that
this package is being actively maintained so thought this would be a
good way to contact someone who can get this fixed, if it is a
problem. I've already written to arm64@buildd.debian.org about a
similar possible problem with cairomm. If this is all being
automatically monitored and will be fixed in due course, then sorry
for the noise.)

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
I see you've done it, and synfigstudio is now Uploaded. Thanks.

--- End Message ---
Reply to: