On Fri Aug 28 18:10:08 2015 GMT+0530, intrigeri wrote: > Control: severity -1 serious
Thanks for this. > Hi, > > Vasudev Kamath wrote (22 Aug 2015 11:37:55 GMT) : > > Control: tag -1 -help > > OK. Please re-add this tag if you can't fix it in a timely manner. Actually its fixed and in git. Problem is lintian related. But I suspect problem is in lintian but some one else has to double check (hint jonas ;-) ) > > I just now tried building the package and got the build error. But the > > symbol files diff is different from what is originally reported in this > > bug log. In the new symbols diff I do see __cxx11 hence it is definitely > > bug related to transition. > > OK. This means that this bug is RC. Adjusting it myself, as I've > already requested this change 2 weeks ago. This package has no reverse > dependency (right?) so worst case it'll just be broken and > autoremoved, so likely we don't need to mark this bug as blocking the > transition one. But I might have missed something, please > double check. There is no reverse dependency I've checked it. But package depends on cxxtools which also need transition but there is no bug on it yet. I just saw it in doko's rebuild logs > > > Now my doubt is whether to tag this bug appropriately or file different > > bug because there is no __cxx11 in the symbols diff attached with this > > bug. > > Since 2 months, libstdc++ and GCC can have changed in ways that may > explain this discrepancy, so I suggest to "just" fix the FTBFS + GCC > transition, and then see if there's still a problem for someone (that > can then get its own bug report). Ok -- Sent from my Jolla
