On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 09:36:01PM +0100, Alexandre Pineau wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 12:43:54 +0100
> Michel Dänzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 23:14, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > > * Branden Robinson [Mon, Mar 08 2004, 04:57:13PM]:
> > >
> > > > > > It seems to fail because ld doesn't find libXext.so.6, which is
> > > > > > normaly provided by xlibs
> > > > > > (build-depend ok). I don't know what I can do. Any idea?
> > > > >
> > > > > Looks like a result of #236428, the libxext package is not pulled in
> > > > > by
> > > > > dependency.
> > > >
> > > > I do not understand this statement.
> > > >
> > > > Package: libxext-dev
> > > > Section: libdevel
> > > > Architecture: any
> > > > Depends: libxext6 (= ${Source-Version}), x-dev, libc6-dev | libc-dev
> > >
> > > Hm, I think my analysis was flawed. Looks like yet another m68k issue.
> >
> > Wasn't this fallout of #234772 and friends?
>
> Probably. Liquidwar has been built with xlibs 4.3.0-2, and libXext has not
> been
> installed during the build. That's because 4.3.0-2 was buggy. Please read the bug logs of #234772, and note that the current version in unstable is 4.3.0-5. > In any case, I don't think the original bug report is related to > liquidwar, so I will reasign it to libxext-dev. That's precisely the wrong thing to do. You need to ask the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list to re-queue your package for autobuilding. If you reassign 236428 to any xfree86 package, I will reassign it right back to liquidwar. -- G. Branden Robinson | Religious bondage shackles and Debian GNU/Linux | debilitates the mind and unfits it [EMAIL PROTECTED] | for every noble enterprise. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- James Madison
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
