This did not seem to get any attention on debian-devel, so I am cross posting to debian-release. I would really be interested to know if others think that the binNMU approach suggested by Matthias is acceptable and/or viable.
Regards, -Roberto Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > Matthias Klose wrote: >> tags 558412 + wontfix >> thanks >> >> On 28.11.2009 19:10, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: >>> Package: binutils-dev >>> Version: 2.18.1~cvs20080103-7 >>> Severity: normal >>> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> In order to solve #537744 (filed against oprofile), it is necessary for >>> binutils-dev to provide a libbfd_pic.a library. This is like what is >>> already done for libiberity_pic.a. >> won't fix. oprofile can be built using binary NMU's when the bfd version >> changes. > > I am not sure that is really a viable solution. What do others thing? > Is requiring a binNMU of oprofile each time that the bfd version changes > something that makes sense? > > Regards, > > -Roberto > -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
