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

Bug#911522: marked as done (ghostscript: FTBFS on amd64, i386)

Your message dated Sun, 21 Oct 2018 14:28:37 +0200
with message-id <b5248434-f109-7040-d720-ab20898bf38a@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#911522: ghostscript: FTBFS on amd64, i386
has caused the Debian Bug report #911522,
regarding ghostscript: FTBFS on amd64, i386
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.)


-- 
911522: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=911522
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
package: src:ghostscript
version: 9.25~dfsg-4
severity: serious
tags: ftbfs

Hi,

The latest version of ghostscript in unstable fails on amd64, i386:

https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=ghostscript

Cheers,

Ivo

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

On 10/21/18 1:06 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote:

Jonas Smedegaard, le dim. 21 oct. 2018 12:56:02 +0200, a ecrit:

I am clueless why that happens.  Not sure, but I suspect it is a
spurious error happening occationally and if so that a workaround is
to simply request a binNMU.

Help dearly appreciated either requesting a binNMU (by someone
understanding the - to me - strange language to do that),


I have done so (actually it's a buildd give-back, binNMU is when you
rebuild a new binary version of an existing package)


It builds now. Closing!

Thanks,

Ivo

--- End Message ---
Reply to: