On Dec 29, 2013 11:43 AM, "Paul Wise" wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
>
> > Seems that different architectures have different symbols.
>
> To me it doesn't look that simple, since the missing symbols are the
> same on many arches. It seems like upstream is basing
On 12/29/2013 04:24 AM, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> I maintain a new package, licenseutils, for witch I had a very bad
> response from buildd:
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=licenseutils&suite=sid
>
> Seems that different architectures have different symbols. So I'm
> looking for a w
Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
>> Seems that different architectures have different symbols.
> To me it doesn't look that simple, since the missing symbols are the
> same on many arches. It seems like upstream is basing the
> presence/absence of some pub
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> Seems that different architectures have different symbols.
To me it doesn't look that simple, since the missing symbols are the
same on many arches. It seems like upstream is basing the
presence/absence of some public functions on what is r
I maintain a new package, licenseutils, for witch I had a very bad
response from buildd:
https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=licenseutils&suite=sid
Seems that different architectures have different symbols. So I'm
looking for a way to address this issue.
As dh_makeshlibs(1) states if I
5 matches
Mail list logo