[Debian-med-packaging] [noreply at buildd.debian.org: failed mipsel build of parafly 0.0.2013.01.21-1]

[Michael R. Crusoe]

Hey Andreas,

I interpret '-m64' as a signal that the developer only supports 64 bit
OSes/hardware. From what I can find, mipsel can be 32 or 64bit. So I would
suggest removing mipsel from the supported architecture series.

Does that make sense?

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:36 AM Andreas Tille <andreas at an3as.eu> wrote:

> Hi Michael,
>
> perhaps simply droping the option -m64 would solve this (same for
> arm64).  I vaguely remember that it is redundant for all architectures
> but please double check this.
>
> Kind regards
>
>       Andreas.
>
> ----- Forwarded message from Debian buildds <noreply at buildd.debian.org>
> -----
>
> Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 09:45:01 +0000
> From: Debian buildds <noreply at buildd.debian.org>
> To: parafly at packages.qa.debian.org
> Subject: failed mipsel build of parafly 0.0.2013.01.21-1
>
>  * Source package: parafly
>  * Version: 0.0.2013.01.21-1
>  * Architecture: mipsel
>  * State: failed
>  * Suite: sid
>  * Builder: mayer.debian.org
>  * Build log:
> https://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=parafly&arch=mipsel&ver=0.0.2013.01.21-1&stamp=1432719507&file=log
>
> Please note that these notifications do not necessarily mean bug reports
> in your package but could also be caused by other packages, temporary
> uninstallabilities and arch-specific breakages.  A look at the build log
> despite this disclaimer would be appreciated however.
>
>
>
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
>
> --
> http://fam-tille.de
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-med-packaging/attachments/20150527/3a2bf152/attachment.html>