On amd64 (and other 64 bit arches?) we're seeing something simular:
bt_nice_size.c: In function 'bt_nice_size':
bt_nice_size.c:34: warning: format '%llu' expects type 'long long unsigned
int', but argument 4 has type 'u_int64_t'
bt_nice_size.c:34: warning: format '%llu' expects type 'long long uns
Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, name it libapr-dev. If something really can use either one
> of the 2, I don't see why you should make a transition so hard
> and go and name it libapr0-dev.
>
> So I suggest you rename libapr0-dev to libapr-dev and make it
> provide libapr0-dev for n
Asheesh Laroia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >But if I have to remove the "apr1 | apr0" sutff, then a new version of
> >mod-bt (and every other apache2 module) will be neccessary when the switch
> >to 2.2 happens.
> In theory you could just switch the order of apr1 | apr0. But I agree
> that this
On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 11:37:58AM -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
> Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 10:10:37AM -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
> > > > apache2-prefork-dev depends on libapr0-dev which conflicts with
> > > > libapr1-dev.
> > > But that should be fi
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
But if I have to remove the "apr1 | apr0" sutff, then a new version of
mod-bt (and every other apache2 module) will be neccessary when the switch
to 2.2 happens.
In theory you could just switch the order of apr1 | apr0. But I agree
that this is less
Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 10:10:37AM -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
> > > apache2-prefork-dev depends on libapr0-dev which conflicts with
> > > libapr1-dev.
> > But that should be fine, since I depend on libapr1-dev *or*
> > libapr0-dev, shouldn't it? pbu
On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 10:10:37AM -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
> > apache2-prefork-dev depends on libapr0-dev which conflicts with
> > libapr1-dev.
> But that should be fine, since I depend on libapr1-dev *or*
> libapr0-dev, shouldn't it? pbuilder handles it without a problem...
No. The au
Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Package: mod-bt
> Version: 0.0.18+p4.1178-1
> Severity: serious
>
> There was an error while trying to autobuild your package:
>
> > Automatic build of mod-bt_0.0.18+p4.1178-1 on lxdebian.bfinv.de by
> > sbuild/s390 85
> [...]
> > ** Using build depende
8 matches
Mail list logo
