On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 14:06:37 +0900, d+...@vdr.jp wrote:
> For the present, patch to symbol files attached.
> It is too complex, should I use override instead of symbol files?
I think you should use neither.
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.
tags 649905 - pending
tags 649905 + patch
thanks
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 02:10:25AM +0900, d+...@vdr.jp wrote:
> > >Per https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=blackbox,
> > >builds of blackbox on 32-bit architectures have been failing
> > >because libbt0.symbols only matches libbt.so.0's a
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 04:45:29PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> >Per https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=blackbox,
> >builds of blackbox on 32-bit architectures have been failing
> >because libbt0.symbols only matches libbt.so.0's actual symbols on
> >64-bit architectures (amd64, ia64
* Aaron M. Ucko , 2011-11-24, 13:00:
Per https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=blackbox, builds of
blackbox on 32-bit architectures have been failing because
libbt0.symbols only matches libbt.so.0's actual symbols on 64-bit
architectures (amd64, ia64, and kfreebsd-amd64).
May I ask y
tags 649905 + pending
thanks
fix package uploaded to mentors.
--
Regards,
dai
GPG Fingerprint = 0B29 D88E 42E6 B765 B8D8 EA50 7839 619D D439 668E
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Source: blackbox
Version: 0.70.1-4
Severity: serious
Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully in the past)
Per https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=blackbox, builds of
blackbox on 32-bit architectures have been failing because
libbt0.symbols only matches libbt.so
6 matches
Mail list logo
