Your message dated Mon, 8 Dec 2008 02:19:43 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Re: Bug#507051: Please exclude libv4l from being built on
non-Linux architectures
has caused the Debian Bug report #507051,
regarding Please exclude libv4l from being built on non-Linux architectures
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
immediately.)
--
507051: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=507051
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: buildd.debian.org
Severity: normal
Hello,
libv4l is a Video4Linux specific package and thus only buildable on
Linux architectures. Ben Hutchings mentioned in [1] to add it to the
'wanna-build's packages-arch-specific list'. I've already contacted
Lamont Jones but got no reply.
Currently libv4l waits for linux-libc-dev on these unsupported
architectures [2].
Is it still useful to exclude it from being built on non-Linux
architectures or does the unsatisfied build dependency suffice?
Thanks,
Gregor
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2008/11/msg00062.html
[2] http://buildd.debian-ports.org/status/package.php?p=libv4l
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
tag 507051 + wontfix
thanks
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 02:36:12PM +0100, Gregor Jasny wrote:
> libv4l is a Video4Linux specific package and thus only buildable on
> Linux architectures. Ben Hutchings mentioned in [1] to add it to the
> 'wanna-build's packages-arch-specific list'. I've already contacted
> Lamont Jones but got no reply.
>
> Currently libv4l waits for linux-libc-dev on these unsupported
> architectures [2].
>
> Is it still useful to exclude it from being built on non-Linux
> architectures or does the unsatisfied build dependency suffice?
Sorry to turn this request down but I don't think that it makes sense
to add it to p-a-s. The dep-wait on the unsatisfied build dependency
will prevent it from building anyway. Furthermore the list would
either need adjustments on new Linux arches or on new non-Linux arches.
Kind regards,
Philipp Kern
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---
