Bug#430758: Applying the suggested patch would make the package FTBFS

[Christian Perrier]

Quoting Petr Salinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
 -Build-Depends: debhelper (= 4.1.16), libpcap0.7-dev, bison|byacc, flex
 +Build-Depends: debhelper (= 4.1.16), libpcap0.8-dev, bison|byacc, flex

 Your initial bug report suggested replacing the build dependency on
 libpcap0.7-dev by libpcap0.8-dev | libpcap-dev. Is there any reason
 to now require 0.8 explicitely?

 No, but now there is #477530 requesting to drop libpcap-dev transitional 
 package.
 It is up to you, please use either libpcap0.8-dev | libpcap-dev or 
 libpcap0.8-dev.


Ah, I understand better. Thanks for the details. I'll of course use
libpcap0.8-dev, then.



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#430758: Applying the suggested patch would make the package FTBFS

[Christian Perrier]

Quoting Petr Salinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):

 -Build-Depends: debhelper (= 4.1.16), libpcap0.7-dev, bison|byacc, flex
 +Build-Depends: debhelper (= 4.1.16), libpcap0.8-dev, bison|byacc, flex


Your initial bug report suggested replacing the build dependency on
libpcap0.7-dev by libpcap0.8-dev | libpcap-dev. Is there any reason
to now require 0.8 explicitely?




signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#430758: Applying the suggested patch would make the package FTBFS

[Petr Salinger]

-Build-Depends: debhelper (= 4.1.16), libpcap0.7-dev, bison|byacc, flex
+Build-Depends: debhelper (= 4.1.16), libpcap0.8-dev, bison|byacc, flex


Your initial bug report suggested replacing the build dependency on
libpcap0.7-dev by libpcap0.8-dev | libpcap-dev. Is there any reason
to now require 0.8 explicitely?


No, but now there is #477530 requesting to drop libpcap-dev transitional 
package.
It is up to you, please use either libpcap0.8-dev | libpcap-dev or 
libpcap0.8-dev.

Thanks

Petr



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#430758: Applying the suggested patch would make the package FTBFS

[Petr Salinger]

Hello,

sorry for that.


Indeed, bpf.h is provided in libpcap0.7-dev but not in libpcam0.8-dev.

I don't have the expertise to investigate this further. So, unless
someone with such expertise comes up with a cooked solution, I only
can leave this bug aside...


Please, could you apply attached patch instead and after that run 
following commands:


  cp /usr/share/misc/config.* .
  aclocal-1.4
  autoconf

The net/bpf.h is not included directly from any wipl source file,
the content is in pcap-bpf.h which is included from pcap.h.

Sorry for not catching this before.

Petr


diff -u wipl-20020601/debian/control wipl-20020601/debian/control
--- wipl-20020601/debian/control
+++ wipl-20020601/debian/control
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 Section: net
 Priority: optional
 Maintainer: Carlo Contavalli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Build-Depends: debhelper (= 4.1.16), libpcap0.7-dev, bison|byacc, flex
+Build-Depends: debhelper (= 4.1.16), libpcap0.8-dev, bison|byacc, flex
 Standards-Version: 3.6.2
 
 Package: wipl-daemon
only in patch2:
unchanged:
--- wipl-20020601.orig/acinclude.m4
+++ wipl-20020601/acinclude.m4
@@ -59,8 +59,6 @@
 CPPFLAGS=$CPPFLAGS $PCAP_INCLUDE
 
 # Pcap header checks
-AC_CHECK_HEADER(net/bpf.h,,
-AC_MSG_ERROR([[Header file net/bpf.h not found; if you installed 
libpcap from source, did you also do \make install-incl\?]]))
 AC_CHECK_HEADER(pcap.h,, AC_MSG_ERROR(Header file pcap.h not found.))
 
 #

Bug#430758: Applying the suggested patch would make the package FTBFS

[Christian Perrier]

Hello,

I'm working on an l10n NMU of the wipl package and was considering to
include the patch proposed in that bug report, to make the package
depend on a more recent version of libpcap development files.

However, doing so triggers the following:

checking for extraneous pcap header directories... found -- -I/usr/include 
added to CPPFLAGS
checking for net/bpf.h... no
configure: error: Header file net/bpf.h not found; if you installed libpcap 
from source, did you also do make install-incl?
make: *** [configure-stamp] Error 1

Indeed, bpf.h is provided in libpcap0.7-dev but not in libpcam0.8-dev.

I don't have the expertise to investigate this further. So, unless
someone with such expertise comes up with a cooked solution, I only
can leave this bug aside...

-- 




signature.asc
Description: Digital signature