> I think both are wrong but both do the job. Yes, I think also, but that’s not something I can do. This "fix" works fine so far, but yeah, upstream should fix it.
> Now, the question is: do we need to fix this for bullseye? > It smells like there's no need to, no? No, not that I think off, current bullseye version builds as far I know, but I hardly do cifs-utils packages. its only that I needed it now on 1 server. The shown fix, commit aeaa786aceb0ea781ded2c151fb68f6b34880ad4 is the patch I added. and cifs-utils 7.0 also fails to build without that patch with parallel=1 And yes, we can leave Bullseye versions alone, but would be nice to add this one to unstable. At least the patch fixed this bug report 😊 Greetz, Louis > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Pkg-samba-maint <pkg-samba-maint-bounces+belle=bazuin.nl@alioth- > lists.debian.net> Namens Debian Bug Tracking System > Verzonden: donderdag 25 augustus 2022 10:15 > Aan: Michael Tokarev <[email protected]> > CC: [email protected] > Onderwerp: [Pkg-samba-maint] Processed: Re: cifs-utils non-parallel FTBFS > > Processing control commands: > > > tag -1 + pending > Bug #993014 [src:cifs-utils] cifs-utils non-parallel FTBFS Added tag(s) > pending. > > -- > 993014: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=993014 > Debian Bug Tracking System > Contact [email protected] with problems > > _______________________________________________ > Pkg-samba-maint mailing list > [email protected] > https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-samba-maint
