sra-tools2.8.2-1 builds with no problem. 2017-12-07 18:50 GMT+01:00 Gábor Boskovits : > Hello! > > The gtk+ patch is now in core-updates. > > > 2017-12-05 8:07 GMT+01:00 Gábor Boskovits : > >> FAIL: abicheck.sh >> PASS: pltcheck.sh >> ============================================================ >> ================ >> Testsuite summary for gtk+ 2.24.31 >> ============================================================ >> ================ >> # TOTAL: 3 >> # PASS: 2 >> # SKIP: 0 >> # XFAIL: 0 >> # FAIL: 1 >> # XPASS: 0 >> # ERROR: 0 >> ============================================================ >> ================ >> See gtk/test-suite.log >> Please report to http://bugzilla.gnome.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=gtk%2B >> ============================================================ >> ================ >> >> This is what I have now. >> >> FAIL: abicheck.sh >> ================= >> >> --- expected-abi 2017-12-05 05:45:34.472000000 +0000 >> +++ actual-abi 2017-12-05 05:45:34.508000000 +0000 >> @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ >> +g_cclosure_marshal_BOOLEAN__BOXED_BOXED >> gtk_about_dialog_get_artists >> gtk_about_dialog_get_authors >> gtk_about_dialog_get_comments >> FAIL abicheck.sh (exit status: 1 >> >> This is the log. >> >> >> >> 2017-12-04 20:15 GMT+01:00 Leo Famulari : >> >>> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 04:44:00PM +0100, Gábor Boskovits wrote: >>> > Now that this problem around glibc is resolved, I think I will do some >>> > history rewrite, so that these reverts, reverting the revert.... does >>> not >>> > show up. >>> > I 'm also willing to rename the branch to have wip in the name, as this >>> > seems to be standard for longer runnig parts. WDYT? >>> >>> In general, we don't rewrite history of any public branches on our >>> Savannah instance, except for branches whose name starts with "wip-". >>> That, is "work in progress". >>> >>> But of course we can all follow our own rules on our own Git servers :) >>> >> >> >