On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote:
>
> I think that position of ${overri...@]/#/-e}" is wrong in d-devlibdeps.
> I think that you should do it as follows.
>
>
> --- d-devlibdeps.orig 2009-12-25 04:35:11.000000000 +0000
> +++ d-devlibdeps 2009-12-25 04:35:22.000000000 +0000
> @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@
> function overridedevlibdeps () {
> # overrides necessary until the scheme is adopted.
> sed \
> + "${overri...@]/#/-e}" \
> -e 's/libX11-6-dev/libx11-dev | xlibs-dev (<< 4.3.0)/' \
> -e 's/libXext6-dev/libxext-dev | xlibs-dev (<< 4.3.0)/' \
> -e 's/libXi6-dev/libxi-dev | xlibs-dev (<< 4.3.0)/' \
> @@ -109,7 +110,6 @@
> -e 's/libgthread-2.0-0-dev/libglib2.0-dev/' \
> -e 's/libstdc++6-dev/libstdc++6-4.1-dev/' \
> -e 's/ld-linux3-dev-dev//' \
> - "${overri...@]/#/-e}" \
>
>
> # the blank line above this line is intentionally left blank
I can confirm that this enables overriding the broken libstdc++6-4.1-dev
dependency. So IMHO this not finally fixes the bug but enables users
to work around it and reducing to minor / wishlist sounds apropriate.
Junichi, are you actually continue maintaining this package? I'm asking
bacause of some easy to fix lintian warnings like outdated standards
version etc.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
