Re: Compiler Warnings

2002-01-29 Thread Matt Zimmerman
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 05:56:55PM -0500, Bob Hilliard wrote: > Compiling a source file that #includes /usr/include/syslog.h > produces: > > /usr/include/sys/syslog.h:80: warning: initialization discards qualifiers \ > from pointer target type > > repeated 70 ti

Compiler Warnings

2002-01-29 Thread Bob Hilliard
Compiling a source file that #includes /usr/include/syslog.h produces: /usr/include/sys/syslog.h:80: warning: initialization discards qualifiers \ from pointer target type repeated 70 times. This is Bug#111767. This is caused by the compiler flag ``-Wwrite

Re: Compiler Warnings

2002-01-29 Thread Matt Zimmerman
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 05:56:55PM -0500, Bob Hilliard wrote: > Compiling a source file that #includes /usr/include/syslog.h > produces: > > /usr/include/sys/syslog.h:80: warning: initialization discards qualifiers \ > from pointer target type > > repeated 70 t

Compiler Warnings

2002-01-29 Thread Bob Hilliard
Compiling a source file that #includes /usr/include/syslog.h produces: /usr/include/sys/syslog.h:80: warning: initialization discards qualifiers \ from pointer target type repeated 70 times. This is Bug#111767. This is caused by the compiler flag ``-Wwrit

Re: Buildd rejected my Build-depends:

2002-01-29 Thread Matt Zimmerman
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 02:18:34PM +0100, Judica?l Courant wrote: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 21:59, Matt Zimmerman wrote : > > > You might try: > > > > Build-depends: debhelper (>= 3), ocaml (>= 3.01), ocaml (>= X) | camlp4 (>= > > 3.01) > > > > where X is the version which incorporates the for

Re: Buildd rejected my Build-depends:

2002-01-29 Thread Matt Zimmerman
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 02:18:34PM +0100, Judica?l Courant wrote: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 21:59, Matt Zimmerman wrote : > > > You might try: > > > > Build-depends: debhelper (>= 3), ocaml (>= 3.01), ocaml (>= X) | camlp4 (>= 3.01) > > > > where X is the version which incorporates the former

Re: Handling bug 113493

2002-01-29 Thread Mark Brown
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 06:19:02PM +0100, Stefan Schwandter wrote: > all...). so the woody tag is certainly not appropiate anymore. Should I > close the bug, since it is fixed in the current package (actually it was > fixed , or tag it potato instead (because the buggy version is in > potato)? G

Re: Handling bug 113493

2002-01-29 Thread Stefan Schwandter
Stefan Schwandter wrote: > fixed , or tag it potato instead (because the buggy version is in ^ | | a long time ago) regards, Stefan -- http://www.shockfrosted.org

Handling bug 113493

2002-01-29 Thread Stefan Schwandter
Hi, I'm not shure what to do with this bug. The version of snd having this bug is not in woody anymore (at present, snd it is not in woody at all...). so the woody tag is certainly not appropiate anymore. Should I close the bug, since it is fixed in the current package (actually it was fixed ,

Re: Handling bug 113493

2002-01-29 Thread Mark Brown
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 06:19:02PM +0100, Stefan Schwandter wrote: > all...). so the woody tag is certainly not appropiate anymore. Should I > close the bug, since it is fixed in the current package (actually it was > fixed , or tag it potato instead (because the buggy version is in > potato)?

Re: Handling bug 113493

2002-01-29 Thread Stefan Schwandter
Stefan Schwandter wrote: > fixed , or tag it potato instead (because the buggy version is in ^ | | a long time ago) regards, Stefan -- http://www.shockfrosted.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAI

Handling bug 113493

2002-01-29 Thread Stefan Schwandter
Hi, I'm not shure what to do with this bug. The version of snd having this bug is not in woody anymore (at present, snd it is not in woody at all...). so the woody tag is certainly not appropiate anymore. Should I close the bug, since it is fixed in the current package (actually it was fixed ,

Re: Buildd rejected my Build-depends:

2002-01-29 Thread Judicaƫl Courant
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 21:59, Matt Zimmerman wrote : > You might try: > > Build-depends: debhelper (>= 3), ocaml (>= 3.01), ocaml (>= X) | camlp4 (>= > 3.01) > > where X is the version which incorporates the former contents of camlp4. > That is indeed the workaround I was speaking of. But my

Re: Buildd rejected my Build-depends:

2002-01-29 Thread Judicaƫl Courant
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 21:59, Matt Zimmerman wrote : > You might try: > > Build-depends: debhelper (>= 3), ocaml (>= 3.01), ocaml (>= X) | camlp4 (>= 3.01) > > where X is the version which incorporates the former contents of camlp4. > That is indeed the workaround I was speaking of. But my q