On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 05:29:44PM -0800, Marc Singer wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 05:22:45PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Marc Singer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I'm getting a build failure on s390 for the updated package. For some
> > > reason, the libX11.a librarary isn't being fou
Marc Singer wrote:
> I was wrong, the package does use autoconf. I'm not doing the build,
> the autobuilder is.
Here is what vorlon tought me to do:
cd packagesrc-0.0/
autoconf
dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -uc -us -b
cd ..
pbuilder build package*dsc
Do you want me to test this for you and gener
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 05:22:45PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Marc Singer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I'm getting a build failure on s390 for the updated package. For some
> > reason, the libX11.a librarary isn't being found by ld. It's looking in
> > /usr/X11R6/lib. Am I misunderstandi
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 02:21:36AM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Marc Singer wrote:
> > buici-clock
>
> > I guess I'm going to have to pull the s390 x11-dev package to look at
> > it.
>
> You need to replace xlibs-dev dependency by the appropriate dev-packages
> that it has been split up into
Marc Singer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm getting a build failure on s390 for the updated package. For some
> reason, the libX11.a librarary isn't being found by ld. It's looking in
> /usr/X11R6/lib. Am I misunderstanding another change in the X11
> libraries?
Maybe I'm missing something o
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 05:11:45PM -0800, Marc Singer wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 02:02:57AM +0100, Amaya wrote:
> > Marc Singer wrote:
> > > I'm getting a build failure on s390 for the updated package. For some
> >
> > Which one?
>
> buici-clock
>
> It builds on ix86, but I don't use a
Marc Singer wrote:
> buici-clock
> I guess I'm going to have to pull the s390 x11-dev package to look at
> it.
You need to replace xlibs-dev dependency by the appropriate dev-packages
that it has been split up into (in the case of buici-clock, those
probably are libx11-dev, libxext-dev, x-dev).
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 02:02:57AM +0100, Amaya wrote:
> Marc Singer wrote:
> > I'm getting a build failure on s390 for the updated package. For some
>
> Which one?
buici-clock
It builds on ix86, but I don't use a chroot jail for building.
>
> > reason, the libX11.a librarary isn't being fo
Marc Singer wrote:
> I'm getting a build failure on s390 for the updated package. For some
Which one?
> reason, the libX11.a librarary isn't being found by ld. It's looking
> in /usr/X11R6/lib. Am I misunderstanding another change in the X11
> libraries?
Does re-running autoconf help?
--
.
Amaya wrote:
>> 346760 maintainer has demands
> Just upload and orphan. He doesn't seem to want to do it himself.
Yeah, well. I prefered to do the more enthusiastic maintainers first.
And now I'm tired and testing xmms-jack moved me from bugs to Beethoven. :)
> Can we tag the bugs you already fixe
I'm getting a build failure on s390 for the updated package. For some
reason, the libX11.a librarary isn't being found by ld. It's looking
in /usr/X11R6/lib. Am I misunderstanding another change in the X11
libraries?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for the update on the status of this.
Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> 346760 maintainer has demands
Just upload and orphan. He doesn't seem to want to do it himself.
Can we tag the bugs you already fixed in an upload as "pending"?
This way it is much easier to keep track of the ones
Hi Justin,
Justin Pryzby wrote:
> 346622 346626 346646 346773 346827 346624 346634 346760 346795 347096
346622 fixed by maint
347096 fixed by maint
346827 uploaded (maint consent)
346624 uploaded (maint consent)
346634 uploaded
346795 uploaded
Not yet:
346646 346626 346773
346760 maintainer h
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 05:45:59PM +0100, Thomas Huriaux wrote:
> printbill seems to be dead upstream, RFA-bug (#282561) open more than
> one year ago, last maintainer upload 3 years ago (1 NMU to fix 1 RC-bug
> since this upload), only 1 popcon vote.
>
> Any objections for its removal from unstab
Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Unfortunately my first round didn't use the script (though I was aware
> of it), and so many packages say "(no replacement needed)", even
> though they have a direct build-dep on some package which used to be
> depended on by xlibs-dev. So I'm going back through the bugs and
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 06:17:31PM +0100, Amaya wrote:
> Hi there, Justin
>
> Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > Each of the bugs tagged patch has a short note with the necessary
> > change b-d.
>
> I intend to do this:
> http://paste.debian.net/3743
> And I am very interested in your work... I would like
Hi there, Justin
Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Each of the bugs tagged patch has a short note with the necessary
> change b-d.
I intend to do this:
http://paste.debian.net/3743
And I am very interested in your work... I would like to see a list of
those bugs, specifically the ones *you* fixed.
I am in
Hi,
printbill seems to be dead upstream, RFA-bug (#282561) open more than
one year ago, last maintainer upload 3 years ago (1 NMU to fix 1 RC-bug
since this upload), only 1 popcon vote.
Any objections for its removal from unstable?
--
Thomas Huriaux
signature.asc
Description: Digital signatur
18 matches
Mail list logo
