Bug#872482: why the further fixup is not needed

2017-10-21 Thread Sebastian Harl
Hi, On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 07:05:08PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote: > On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 15:05:30 +0100 Luca Boccassi > wrote: > > On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 07:35:20 +0200 Christian Ehrhardt > > d...@canonical.com> wrote: > > > For a grain of confidence and background - Upstream there is also a > > fo

Bug#872482: why the further fixup is not needed

2017-09-01 Thread Luca Boccassi
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 15:05:30 +0100 Luca Boccassi wrote: > On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 07:35:20 +0200 Christian Ehrhardt d...@canonical.com> wrote: > > For a grain of confidence and background - Upstream there is also a > follow > > up fix [1], but that is not needed for your package. > >  > > The reason

Bug#872482: why the further fixup is not needed

2017-08-30 Thread Luca Boccassi
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 07:35:20 +0200 Christian Ehrhardt wrote: > For a grain of confidence and background - Upstream there is also a follow > up fix [1], but that is not needed for your package. >  > The reason is, that this follow up is only needed if dpdk has no > pkg-config, which the 16.11 based

Bug#872482: why the further fixup is not needed

2017-08-17 Thread Christian Ehrhardt
For a grain of confidence and background - Upstream there is also a follow up fix [1], but that is not needed for your package. The reason is, that this follow up is only needed if dpdk has no pkg-config, which the 16.11 based package that is in Debian right now already have. [1]: https://github.