On 17:52 Fri 27 Jan , Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Vasudev Kamath <kamathvasu...@gmail.com>, 2012-01-27, 21:52: > >>> + Reduced the update-alternative priority to 30 as per > >>>request from user to the previous maintainer > >>Hmm. Was there a bug report about that? > >No previous maintainer Kai forwarded mail to me as I had adopted > >his dwm package. I asked the reporter to raise a bug but he didn't > >do that. So what do you suggest me to do for this? Shall I raise a > >bug or its not required?. > > Well, I wanted to have some insight into what problem we're trying > to solve here. Having it documented somewhere (preferably in a bug > report) would be nice.
Done reported it as bugs by including mail content which I got and added closes in changelog > > >>The hunk looks like this: > >> > >>+#export DH_VERBOSE=1 > >>+ > >>+-include /usr/share/dpkg/buildflags.mk > >>+export CPPFLAGS CFLAGS LDFLAGS > >> > >>Unfortunately, this _won't_ do the right thing for these > >>dpkg-dev versions that didn't provide the > >>/usr/share/dpkg/buildflags.mk file. Please see > >><http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2011/10/msg00307.html> > >>to understand why. > > > >Ok I went through the conversation so I need to build-depend on > >dpkg-dev correct version for this and add conditional check for > >buildflags.mk. Please correct me if I'm wrong > > There is more than one way to fix this. The simplest is to have > versioned build-dependency on dpkg-dev. (And then you don't need "-" > prefix before include, or other conditional checks.) Done added a Build-Depends and removed - from rules. Re uploaded package to mentors Best Regards -- Vasudev Kamath GPG fingerprint = C517 C25D E408 759D 98A4 C96B 6C8F 74AE 8770 0B7E
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
