Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Note that it's not sufficient for the fixed package to reach unstable, the > buildd admins also (and more importantly) need to clean up the build chroots > by manually reconciling the status of the xfree86-common package.
Yeah, I'd like to think it's not my job to make sure this happens. Are the buildd admins aware of the problem? Do I just need to send an email asking them to requeue the failing builds? > It looks like it, though now that I've figured out what was keeping me from > updating to libtool 1.5 (and speaking of questionable upstream practices), > I'm surprised to see that your changes in -7 don't run afoul of the fact > that acinclude.m4 includes a complete local copy of the libtool autoconf > macros... lol, isn't it a dream?! > sed -i -n -e'/g-wrap.m4/,$p' acinclude.m4 && libtoolize --force --copy \ > && aclocal-1.4 -I macros && autoconf > > looks like there's some manual fiddling that has to be done in > po/Makefile.in.in as well; I'll send you a full patch privately once I have > it building all the way through. That would be gorgeous. Many thanks for helping out on this, it is very much appreciated. > > Upstream reports that no 1.8 releases should be expected for things > > like the build system; > > Yeah, a reasonable policy, though it would be nice if they used sane build > scripts for any future releases on the 1.8 branch. Is the gnome-2 branch > already using libtool 1.5? No, but it will be. It is using the newer autoconf I'm told, and they intend to switch to libtool 1.5 before release. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]