Your message dated Sun, 18 Jul 2010 20:18:13 +0200
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#589128: liboss-salsa-dev: Missing #define
has caused the Debian Bug report #589128,
regarding liboss-salsa-dev: Missing #define
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.)
--
589128: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=589128
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Subject: liboss-salsa-dev: Missing #define
Package: liboss-salsa-dev
Version: 4.1-build1052b-2
Severity: important
Hi !
While trying to build an application against libsalsa,
I realized that it misses the definition for two
linux-specific errors which are used and documented
in the alsa headers:
#define EBADFD 77 /* File descriptor in bad state */
#define ESTRPIPE 86 /* Streams pipe error */
I would be nice to add these headers and ask upstream
to do so (they are not present in the latest released
version).
Romain
-- System Information:
Debian Release: squeeze/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-4-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello,
Romain Beauxis, le Thu 15 Jul 2010 00:20:10 -0500, a écrit :
> While trying to build an application against libsalsa,
> I realized that it misses the definition for two
> linux-specific errors which are used and documented
> in the alsa headers:
>
> #define EBADFD 77 /* File descriptor in bad state */
> #define ESTRPIPE 86 /* Streams pipe error */
>
> I would be nice to add these headers and ask upstream
> to do so (they are not present in the latest released
> version).
Well, as you say, these are Linux-specific errors, so there's no way we
can arbitrarily give some values for them, since they'll either conflict
with existing or future system errors values, and/or they'll have values
differing from what systems eventually decides to choose for them...
The only proper fix is to get systems to choose a value for them (i.e.
in glibc).
Samuel
--- End Message ---
