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

Bug#1030957: marked as done (release.debian.org: please have rust-rustls ignore CI tests for s390x and ppc64el)

Your message dated Fri, 10 Feb 2023 21:22:42 +0100
with message-id <f9381285-7b43-e0f9-f983-205771c7db83@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#1030957: release.debian.org: please have rust-rustls ignore CI tests for s390x and ppc64el
has caused the Debian Bug report #1030957,
regarding release.debian.org: please have rust-rustls ignore CI tests for s390x and ppc64el
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.)


-- 
1030957: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1030957
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: important

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

ckage src:rust-rustls is not migrating to testing because tests fail for
s390x and ppc64el.  On both arches the failure is that the test
environment thinks it needs to install an arch-specific
librust-rustls-dev to satisfy a virtual dependency pointing back to
itself, which is (since recently) an arch-all package.

I can only interpret that as the test environment on thos arches being
broken.  Please don't punish the package for that :-(

There seems to be same problem for rust-oxhttp, and rust-hyper-rustls.
Do you want a separate bugreport for each, or is it fine just mentioning
it here?

 - Jonas

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=GkQb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Hi,

On 09-02-2023 23:59, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

Do you want a separate bugreport for each, or is it fine just mentioning
it here?
All done. (Ironically the skip-not-installable is much faster to finish so it burns less fossil fuel). 

Paul

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: