On dim., 2009-11-29 at 01:57 +0100, Peter Fritzsche wrote: > I did a rebuild of all packages which are affected by bug #554821. As it seems > your package doesnt do the needed autoreconf needed for libtool. When doing > autoreconf or the needed sequence of different autotools/libtool utilities the > package should be able to fix the problem automatically. > /usr/share/doc/autotools-dev/README.Debian.gz explains it in section "Basic > summary of packaging source that uses autotools".
Excuse me, but that's too much information. Between the recently filled bug about FTBFS, #554821 and the just filled bugs, I just can't keep up. It seems that binutils-gold runs into a lot of issues. I know my upstream, they're usually quite confident with library stuff, so i don't even want to imagine what it should be with upstream less knowledgeable. Maybe the transition to binutils-gold is really needed for a lot of reasons, but for the moment it just waste my time (and my upstream's) with a lot of unintelligible bug reports. Could you explain what exactly are the /problems/ (packages work _perfectly_ fine for the moment)? Severity minor seems to indicate I can just ignore the bugs for the moment, and try to report them upstream when I have time (and when I'll have understood them), but having a lot of them (with unintelligible explanations) scares me a little. By the way, I thought MBF were supposed to be announced on debian-devel. I don't track devian-devel much these days, so I might have missed it, but I didn't saw it. Adding a link to the message announcing/explaining the MBF in the report might be a good idea. Cheers, -- Yves-Alexis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Pkg-xfce-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-xfce-devel
