Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > 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.
Unless it's an option to include oprofile into binutils source package, I don't see what's wrong with the binNMU approach? Cheers Luk > 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 >> > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
