reopen 735994 reopen 736035 thanks On Tue, 01 Jul 2014, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> > Yeah, I think that should be fine. Sorry about that -- my script to find > > all affected packages just looked for build dependencies on > > libtiff4-dev. I didn't think to filter out the case where it was an > > alternative with libtiff-dev or libtiff5-dev. Feel free to just close > > the bugs. If I get some time, I may go through the remaining 24 open > > bugs and see if others are like that as well. Thanks. > No, it's not fine. Buildds only consider the first alternative, so if > libtiff4-dev no longer exists, the package won't be able to build on the > buildds. and with your argument reopening those just closed issues ;) but for now with normal severity since FTBFS is not factual yet (libtiff4-dev is still there). I will swap the order of those in build-depends -- pbuilder iirc is a bit "smarter", so hopefully there would be no issues in building those backports we care about in neurodebian -- Yaroslav O. Halchenko, Ph.D. http://neuro.debian.net http://www.pymvpa.org http://www.fail2ban.org Research Scientist, Psychological and Brain Sciences Dept. Dartmouth College, 419 Moore Hall, Hinman Box 6207, Hanover, NH 03755 Phone: +1 (603) 646-9834 Fax: +1 (603) 646-1419 WWW: http://www.linkedin.com/in/yarik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
