Jakub Wilk writes:
> * Ferenc Wagner , 2015-11-26, 19:28:
>
>> I'm packaging a new upstream version of xml-security-c. The previous
>> sid version was 1.7.2-3, which had a transition bug filed for it:
>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=791323
>>
>> Simon McVittie tagged it "unre
* Herbert Parentes Fortes Neto , 2015-11-29, 16:12:
I removed the 'override_dh_makeshlibs' and now 'dpkg-gensymbols' is
warning that:
I certainly didn't advocate removing this override.
The override passed -X options to dh_makeshlibs. They are needed to
prevent debhelper from treating private
Hi,
I didn't understand how this work.
The package has 2 .symbols files. One was
updated when the ABI was changed (2.5.7).
I forgot about the other. So I made new
.symbols files for the last version (2.5.9).
ABI-compatible.
I removed the 'override_dh_makeshlibs' and
now 'dpkg-gensymbols' is war
Hi again,
I just now noticed that the QA information on the mentors site of my
package[0] says that I have no debhelper compatibility level set and
that I don't have a watch file, but both are there in the package I
uploaded. I have no idea what went wrong.
Also, strangely, when I downloaded the p
Hi again,
I just now noticed that the QA information on the mentors site of my
package[0] says that I have no debhelper compatibility level set and
that I don't have a watch file, but both are there in the package I
uploaded. I have no idea what went wrong.
Also, strangely, when I downloaded the p
Hi Jakub,
> * Herbert Parentes Fortes Neto , 2015-11-26, 12:15:
> >I maintain a package which provides a .symbols file. But it uses a
> >dh_makeshlibs in debian/rules[0].
> >
> >override_dh_makeshlibs:
> > dh_makeshlibs -plibgphoto2-$(major) \
> > -V 'libgphoto2-$(major) (>= $(SHLIB
* Herbert Parentes Fortes Neto , 2015-11-26, 12:15:
I maintain a package which provides a .symbols file. But it uses a
dh_makeshlibs in debian/rules[0].
override_dh_makeshlibs:
dh_makeshlibs -plibgphoto2-$(major) \
-V 'libgphoto2-$(major) (>= $(SHLIBS))' \
-X/usr/lib
* Ferenc Wagner , 2015-11-26, 19:28:
I'm packaging a new upstream version of xml-security-c. The previous
sid version was 1.7.2-3, which had a transition bug filed for it:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=791323
Simon McVittie tagged it "unreproducible", because he suspected t
> For example, if 3.patch has not been forwarded upstream yet, then I
> would definitely modify it (instead of creating a new patch).
>
> That way upstream would receive a single patch about the issue, not a
> patch and a patch for the patch.
thanks for your reply. Upstream is not active anymore
9 matches
Mail list logo
