Re: FTBFS due to upgrade/bug in build-dependency

2008-01-11 Thread Frank Terbeck
Cyril Brulebois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 11/01/2008, Frank Terbeck wrote: [...] > > If not, what would be an appropriate close message to send once the > > bug in tdb-dev is closed? > > You could use a versioned Build-Depends: package (>= fixed-version) and > state so when closing that bug. If yo

Re: FTBFS due to upgrade/bug in build-dependency

2008-01-11 Thread Cyril Brulebois
On 11/01/2008, Frank Terbeck wrote: > Okay, I'm not sure if I understand the relevant passages in bts(1), > for these subcommands. So I guess, I better ask in more detail, so I > don't screw up my first manual interaction with the bts. :-) In case you incidentally screw up, everything can be undon

Re: FTBFS due to upgrade/bug in build-dependency

2008-01-11 Thread Frank Terbeck
Cyril Brulebois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 10/01/2008, Frank Terbeck wrote: [...] > > My question is, if it would be the right thing to do is to reassign > > the bug to tdb-dev and add a comment about signal.h to it? Or should I > > rather create a new bug against tdb-dev about the problem? > > Sim

Re: FTBFS due to upgrade/bug in build-dependency

2008-01-10 Thread Cyril Brulebois
On 10/01/2008, Frank Terbeck wrote: > I could work around that problem quite simply. However, I think it > would be preferable, if 'tdb.h' would be fixed. Sure. > My question is, if it would be the right thing to do is to reassign > the bug to tdb-dev and add a comment about signal.h to it? Or sh

FTBFS due to upgrade/bug in build-dependency

2008-01-10 Thread Frank Terbeck
Hi list, I received #456871. This happens since tdb-dev was upgraded from '1.1.0-1+b1' to '1.1.1~svn26294-1', because 'usr/include/tdb.h' uses 'sig_atomic_t' without including . I could work around that problem quite simply. However, I think it would be preferable, if 'tdb.h' would be fixed. My