Bug#828327: gnubiff: FTBFS due to missing #include
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 12:47:13AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 11:05:07PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > On 2016-11-28 23:31:38 [+0200], Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > Control: retitle -1 gnubiff: FTBFS due to missing #include > > > Control: tags -1 patch fixed-upstream > > > Control: unblock 827061 by -1 > > > > > > I've confirmed that gnubiff builds fine with OpenSSL 1.1 > > > > > > The attached patch cherry-picks the missing cstring includes > > > from 2.2.17 > > > > I have problems following you here. This package depends on openssl and > > links against it. > > Yes. > > > This package does not build as-is against 1.1.0 and a > > binNMU will fail. > > This is not really an OpenSSL issue. We've been tracking all packages that fail to build that build-depend on libssl-dev, even if they breakage isn't caused by openssl. You can argue about it either way, it's not important for me. Kurt
Bug#828327: gnubiff: FTBFS due to missing #include
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 11:05:07PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2016-11-28 23:31:38 [+0200], Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Control: retitle -1 gnubiff: FTBFS due to missing #include > > Control: tags -1 patch fixed-upstream > > Control: unblock 827061 by -1 > > > > I've confirmed that gnubiff builds fine with OpenSSL 1.1 > > > > The attached patch cherry-picks the missing cstring includes > > from 2.2.17 > > I have problems following you here. This package depends on openssl and > links against it. Yes. > This package does not build as-is against 1.1.0 and a > binNMU will fail. This is not really an OpenSSL issue. > *Why* do you clear the blocker against the transition > bug? Please verify that my patch is not about OpenSSL code, and gives a successful build with a package dependency on libssl1.1 > Sebastian cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Bug#828327: gnubiff: FTBFS due to missing #include
On 2016-11-28 23:31:38 [+0200], Adrian Bunk wrote: > Control: retitle -1 gnubiff: FTBFS due to missing #include > Control: tags -1 patch fixed-upstream > Control: unblock 827061 by -1 > > I've confirmed that gnubiff builds fine with OpenSSL 1.1 > > The attached patch cherry-picks the missing cstring includes > from 2.2.17 I have problems following you here. This package depends on openssl and links against it. This package does not build as-is against 1.1.0 and a binNMU will fail. *Why* do you clear the blocker against the transition bug? > cu > Adrian > Sebastian
Bug#828327: gnubiff: FTBFS due to missing #include
Control: retitle -1 gnubiff: FTBFS due to missing #include Control: tags -1 patch fixed-upstream Control: unblock 827061 by -1 I've confirmed that gnubiff builds fine with OpenSSL 1.1 The attached patch cherry-picks the missing cstring includes from 2.2.17 cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed Description: Cherry-pick missing #include from 2.2.17 Origin: upstream Bug-Debian: https://bugs.debian.org/828327 --- gnubiff-2.2.16.orig/src/biff.cc +++ gnubiff-2.2.16/src/biff.cc @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ #include "support.h" #include +#include #include #include #include --- gnubiff-2.2.16.orig/src/socket.cc +++ gnubiff-2.2.16/src/socket.cc @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ #include #include #include +#include #include #include #include --- gnubiff-2.2.16.orig/src/ui-applet-gnome.cc +++ gnubiff-2.2.16/src/ui-applet-gnome.cc @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ #include #include +#include #include "ui-applet-gnome.h" #include "ui-popup.h"
