On Tue, 2012-01-24 at 15:33 +0100, Tanguy LE CARROUR wrote:
> Is this the right place to check for next time? (instead of asking
> stupid questions ^_^')
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=257087
You should check:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=debian-h...@lis
2012/1/24 Samuel Thibault
> Tanguy LE CARROUR, le Tue 24 Jan 2012 13:16:36 +0100, a écrit :
> > I checked version 0.3.22. Here is part of the debian/changelog
> >
> > auto-apt (0.3.22) unstable; urgency=low
> > [...]
> > * debian/patches
> > - (Number 10): Fix FTBFS(hurd-i386): PATH_MAX u
Tanguy LE CARROUR, le Tue 24 Jan 2012 13:16:36 +0100, a écrit :
> I checked version 0.3.22. Here is part of the debian/changelog
>
> auto-apt (0.3.22) unstable; urgency=low
> [...]
> * debian/patches
> - (Number 10): Fix FTBFS(hurd-i386): PATH_MAX undeclared
> (Closes: #257087).
>
2012/1/24 Samuel Thibault
> Tanguy LE CARROUR, le Tue 24 Jan 2012 11:07:24 +0100, a écrit :
> > 1) How comes the Hurd patch (part of the last debian/changelog entry)
> doesn't
> > fix this one, leaving a FTBFS package?!
>
> Most probably because this one is new.
>
Oh...
Maybe you can clarify some
Tanguy LE CARROUR, le Tue 24 Jan 2012 11:07:24 +0100, a écrit :
> 1) How comes the Hurd patch (part of the last debian/changelog entry) doesn't
> fix this one, leaving a FTBFS package?!
Most probably because this one is new.
> 2) When is is acceptable to solve a PATH_MAX problem like it was done
Hi guys!
Some more question on "Porting Package", but this time with a specific
example...
I picked "auto-apt" (0.3.22) and even if some Hurd patch had been applied
the code still failed to compile because of one undeclared PATH_MAX.
1) How comes the Hurd patch (part of the last debian/changelog
