Re: RFS: mustang, btk-core

2008-01-10 Thread Andreas Tille
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote: Upstream does not build shared libraries, so there is no need for it. I learned that Debian users sooner or later ask for it (even if neither upstream nor yourself thought there would be a need for it). So at least be prepared. :) I have chosen n

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

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

Re: RFS: mustang, btk-core

2008-01-10 Thread Andreas Tille
Hi, I just took the freedom to really upload the Debian packaging stuff of mustang and btk-core to our SVN: http://cia.vc/stats/project/Debian-Med/.message/51b9d Morten, feel free to revert the group maintainance things I added in a separate check in if you don't feel happy about this. If t

Re: RFS: mustang, btk-core

2008-01-10 Thread Morten Kjeldgaard
Andreas, I'm not positively sure that you noticed the diff I injected today. Please have a look at the attached diffs. Please note: These are just _suggestions_. Finally it is your package and you decide - but I wanted to make sure you did not missed the change. I did the same for btk-core.

Re: RFS: mustang, btk-core

2008-01-10 Thread Morten Kjeldgaard
Re: the diffs you injected, It see your changes in my svn working copy for btk-core, but not for mustang, even if I do "svn update". Since I did the svn-inject of mustang after you did the same, I might have overwritten it? Yes, I think that it was happened. It looks like revision 1099

Re: RFS: gnomecatalog

2008-01-10 Thread José Sánchez Moreno
On mié, 2008-01-09 at 19:16 +0100, José L. Redrejo Rodríguez wrote: > El mié, 09-01-2008 a las 19:14 +0100, José L. Redrejo Rodríguez > escribió: > > El mié, 09-01-2008 a las 18:24 +0100, José Sánchez Moreno escribió: > > > On mié, 2008-01-09 at 12:21 +, Neil Williams wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2