On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 03:02:17PM +0100, Christian Kastner wrote:
> I was
> wondering though if anybody had a better approach to recommend?
Simply remove them. They are not needed for proper operation, as the
shlibs file works as fallba
Hi Henrique,
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> No. When we backport something, we are perfectly capable of backporting
> dpkg-dev first.
> Crap happens when you need backported debhelper, should whomever did that
> backport have neglected to _change_ debhelper to do whate
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> Alternatively, version of dpkg could be lowered and functionality
> conditioned on the version of dpkg (thus implementing necessary logic to
> support older versions), it would imho be better and more flexible to
> please those backport-lovers, savin
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011, Christian Kastner wrote:
> >> One simple way to resolve this would be to rename the .symbols file
> >> during build and again during clean (or similar approaches); I was
> >> wondering though if anybody had a better approach to recommend?
> > I'd say you need a versioned build
On 01/24/2011 04:32 PM, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 03:02:17PM +0100, Christian Kastner wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> it was recently pointed out to me that one of my library packages
>> encountered a build error whilst attempting to backport it to an older
>> system.
>>
>> The build fa
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 03:02:17PM +0100, Christian Kastner wrote:
> Hello,
>
> it was recently pointed out to me that one of my library packages
> encountered a build error whilst attempting to backport it to an older
> system.
>
> The build failed because I use symbol patterns, specifically c++
6 matches
Mail list logo
