Bug#383313: 99_configure.dpatch is the culprit

2006-08-25 Thread Mike Hommey
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 06:57:30PM +0200, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 05:02:02PM +0200, Michel Dänzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > On Fri, 2006-08-25 at 13:42 +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > > Looking at a diff between build logs, I noticed that 1.8.0.5-1 b

Bug#383313: 99_configure.dpatch is the culprit

2006-08-25 Thread Mike Hommey
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 06:57:30PM +0200, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 05:02:02PM +0200, Michel Dänzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > On Fri, 2006-08-25 at 13:42 +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > > Looking at a diff between build logs, I noticed that 1.8.0.5-1 b

Bug#383313: 99_configure.dpatch is the culprit

2006-08-25 Thread Mike Hommey
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 05:02:02PM +0200, Michel Dänzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 2006-08-25 at 13:42 +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > Looking at a diff between build logs, I noticed that 1.8.0.5-1 built > > xptc{stubs,invoke}_unsupported.cpp instead of > > xptc{stubs,invoke}_ppc_linux.c

Bug#383313: 99_configure.dpatch is the culprit

2006-08-25 Thread Michel Dänzer
On Fri, 2006-08-25 at 13:42 +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > Looking at a diff between build logs, I noticed that 1.8.0.5-1 built > xptc{stubs,invoke}_unsupported.cpp instead of > xptc{stubs,invoke}_ppc_linux.cpp. The cause is the following hunk in > 99_configure.dpatch: > > > @@ -5042,10 +4911,17 @