Hi,
My mail client hid this thread in such a way that I didn't realize
there was this thread, until I talked with iwamatsu in person.
I think I should give up maintaining this package, I've been
maintaining this package long enough (8 years ... phew) and I don't
have interest in this package anymore.
Sending out a RFA
At Fri, 25 Dec 2009 15:42:47 +0100,
Andreas Tille wrote:
>
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote:
> >
> > I think that position of ${overri...@]/#/-e}" is wrong in d-devlibdeps.
> > I think that you should do it as follows.
> >
> >
> > --- d-devlibdeps.orig 2009-12-25 04:35:11.000000000 +0000
> > +++ d-devlibdeps 2009-12-25 04:35:22.000000000 +0000
> > @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@
> > function overridedevlibdeps () {
> > # overrides necessary until the scheme is adopted.
> > sed \
> > + "${overri...@]/#/-e}" \
> > -e 's/libX11-6-dev/libx11-dev | xlibs-dev (<< 4.3.0)/' \
> > -e 's/libXext6-dev/libxext-dev | xlibs-dev (<< 4.3.0)/' \
> > -e 's/libXi6-dev/libxi-dev | xlibs-dev (<< 4.3.0)/' \
> > @@ -109,7 +110,6 @@
> > -e 's/libgthread-2.0-0-dev/libglib2.0-dev/' \
> > -e 's/libstdc++6-dev/libstdc++6-4.1-dev/' \
> > -e 's/ld-linux3-dev-dev//' \
> > - "${overri...@]/#/-e}" \
> >
> >
> > # the blank line above this line is intentionally left blank
>
> I can confirm that this enables overriding the broken libstdc++6-4.1-dev
> dependency. So IMHO this not finally fixes the bug but enables users
> to work around it and reducing to minor / wishlist sounds apropriate.
>
> Junichi, are you actually continue maintaining this package? I'm asking
> bacause of some easy to fix lintian warnings like outdated standards
> version etc.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Andreas.
>
> --
> http://fam-tille.de
>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
