On 05-11-12 12:59, Abou Al Montacir wrote: >> Next (errors?): >> invalid Package Link: file >> "/usr/lib/lazarus/0.9.30.4/components/codetools/codetools.lpk" does not >> exist. > These are real bugs, I have a bug open in upstream Mantis BTS and will > resolve it soon. As I said, .lpk files are not sources but part of LCL > binary packages.
Could you please provide the upstream bug number here, I could not locate it? > Same as above, will be fixed soon (you may want to create a bug for > these and refer to upstream bug) Or just use this bug for tracking that? We could just retitle this bug to something about these bugs? > These will not fixed soon due to low priority and freeze. Also A new FPC > and Lazarus upstream versions are being prepared and I'd not fix those > bugs before I get the new versions in sid. So I'd expect to have them > not before a few months. Fair enough. >> I can see your point. However, in that case it would be a nice-to-have >> to avoid the above mentioned errors/warnings. > I'd prefer to keep them, so a newbe who tried to play with minimizing > installation can understand that he is missing some installation parts > and can fix them before concluding that Lazarus is a sheet piece of code. The warning is fine, especially because you already said that the others are valid bugs. So in the end I expect only one warning to remain, right? >> No problem. I don't have problems doing that. Do I read correctly here >> that you would also not consider packaging lazarus 1.0 in experimental >> to help Ubuntu have that in their next release? > I've tarted packaging Lazarus 1.0 in local git branch and eve pushed > parts to the upstream trunk. Some other fixes are still in my git branch > and not pushed yet. I'll package Lazarus 1.0 after wheezy, but if you > are interested, I can create a branch 1.0 on bollin (VCS server for FPC > and Lazarus Debian packaging) and you can use it for Ubuntu. Please do, I will see if I can take it from there than. Paul
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
