Moi! On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 07:28:02AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > I uploaded an NMU of your package. > > Please see this as help to get the package into a releaseable condition.
No need to emphasize which I'd never doubt anyway... > diff -ur dx-4.4.0~/debian/changelog dx-4.4.0/debian/changelog > --- dx-4.4.0~/debian/changelog 2007-06-09 22:37:00.000000000 +0000 > +++ dx-4.4.0/debian/changelog 2007-06-09 22:38:16.000000000 +0000 > @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@ > +dx (1:4.4.0-2.1) unstable; urgency=low > + > + * Non-maintainer upload. > + * Add linux-kernel-headers to fix FTBFS. Also Closes: #423280 > + > + -- Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sat, 9 Jun 2007 22:37:25 +0000 but I wouldn't mind a bit more detail on your changes: Which FTBFS are you referring to? From your "Also" I take it that it's an issue different from #432280? Why should build-depending on linux-kernel-headers be a proper fix for a standard application that ought to have no business dealing with kernel interfaces? Why do you claim that any change in your NMU version fixes #423280 when you didn't touch any code and the bug log clearly states that it's actually a bug in lesstif2-dev (or libxt-dev or whatever. There was a bit of confusion about the true origin, and I'm unsure whether it's been settled in the meantime, which is why the bug was still open)? Incidentially, I just rebuilt -2 on i386 without a hitch, so the header problem looks fixed indeed, and I've got no clue what this kernel-headers hack is supposed to achieve. I also wonder what makes this leaf package so important that you have to NMU a dubious-looking patch with four minutes of advance notice. Next time, please spend an extra minute on the changelog and save me an hour of hunting down what on earth you were trying to do. Regards, Daniel. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
