On 20.03.12 Frank Küster (fr...@debian.org) wrote:
> Hilmar Preusse wrote:
Hi,
> > I unpackaged the original sources (dpkg-source -x), changed the
> > two am files, then run "fakeroot debian/rules binary". The
> > warning messages are not visible in the build log any more.
>
> You really shoul
On Di, 20 MÀr 2012, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
> I guess I found the right place to change, patch attached. After
> running the build the warnings are gone. I did not commit it yet.
Please commit.
Best wishes
Norbert
Norbert Pr
Hilmar Preusse wrote:
> On 20.03.12 Frank Küster (fr...@debian.org) wrote:
>> Hilmar Preusse wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> > I guess I found the right place to change, patch attached. After
>> > running the build the warnings are gone. I did not commit it yet.
>>
>> Did you run debian/rules clean and reb
On 20.03.12 Frank Küster (fr...@debian.org) wrote:
> Hilmar Preusse wrote:
Hi,
> > I guess I found the right place to change, patch attached. After
> > running the build the warnings are gone. I did not commit it yet.
>
> Did you run debian/rules clean and rebuild? I'm not sure whether it
> ma
Hilmar Preusse wrote:
> tags 664074 - wontfix
> tags 664074 + patch
> stop
>
> On 16.03.12 Norbert Preining (prein...@logic.at) wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> > I didn't test it yet. However I'd vote for keeping the patch. Will
>> > have a look at that.
>>
>> Warning, please only patch .am files, note .in,
tags 664074 - wontfix
tags 664074 + patch
stop
On 16.03.12 Norbert Preining (prein...@logic.at) wrote:
Hi,
> > I didn't test it yet. However I'd vote for keeping the patch. Will
> > have a look at that.
>
> Warning, please only patch .am files, note .in, since we are
> running reautoconf.
>
I
Hi,
> I didn't test it yet. However I'd vote for keeping the patch. Will
> have a look at that.
Great! For sure it doesnot apply out of the box, that I checked whdn building
the initial packages. But if it is easy to adapt, fine with me.
Warning, please only patch .am files, note .in, since we
On 16.03.12 Norbert Preining (prein...@logic.at) wrote:
> On Do, 15 Mär 2012, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
Hi,
> > Why is it dangerous the use/send upstream the old fix we had
> > once?
>
> Does it apply? ANd I am NOT sure that it will be acepted, because
> on other OS/Arch combinations these libs need
On Do, 15 Mär 2012, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
> Why is it dangerous the use/send upstream the old fix we had once?
Does it apply? ANd I am NOT sure that it will be acepted, because
on other OS/Arch combinations these libs need to be linked in.
It is very very specific requirement of Debian ...
Best w
On 15.03.12 Norbert Preining (prein...@logic.at) wrote:
Hi,
> If someone else want's to investigate that, and even better, send
> fixes to upstream, or whatever, fine with me. But not me. -> +
> wontfix ;-)
>
Why is it dangerous the use/send upstream the old fix we had once?
H.
--
sigmentati
tags 664074 + wontfix
thanks
Hi HIlmar,
On Do, 15 Mär 2012, Hilmar Preuße wrote:
> dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: dependency on libXext.so.6 could be avoided if
> "debian/texlive-binaries/usr/bin/mf
I know.
> #replaced by --as-needed for dh_autoreconf#60_unneeded_linking
And also, it does not apply
Package: texlive-binaries
Version: 2011.20120307-1
Severity: wishlist
Dear Maintainer,
from the build logs of the latest versions of our packages:
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: dependency on libXext.so.6 could be avoided if
"debian/texlive-binaries/usr/bin/mf
debian/texlive-binaries/usr/bin/xdvi-xaw"
12 matches
Mail list logo
