Bug#778103: reconserver: ftbfs with GCC-5
Daniel Pocock writes: Are you able to submit the patch as a github pull request? https://github.com/resiprocate/reConServer/pull/1 I may also merge the debian/* packaging Git repository with the upstream repository Ok, in that pull request I modified the configure script found from sub-directory to include necessary addition to CXXFLAGS. To my understanding debian/rules did not use this script but instead went on listing the CXXFLAGS in debian/rules so it will require patching too to be able to compile this version of the sources. -- Antti -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#778103: reconserver: ftbfs with GCC-5
Please find attached patch to reconserver. I do not know about quality of this patch. With this patch you can compile, install, the server starts and starts listening and I can telnet to its port BUT, due to my lack of knowledge with this particular SIP server I did not try making any SIP calls through this thing - someone who has SIP gear all set up should really test this patch. The changes anyway are quite obvious. Note the format of the patch, it is normal unified diff. It contains quilt diff. So in order to apply this patch, you need to do something like this: apt-get source reconserver cd reconserver-0.10.3/ patch -p0 /tmp/reconserver-gcc5-unified.patch quilt push after which you should be ready to dpkg-buildpackage. -- Antti Järvinen reconserver-gcc5-unified.patch Description: patch enabling compile with gcc 5.2.1 in sid
Bug#778103: reconserver: ftbfs with GCC-5
On 11/08/15 17:41, Antti Järvinen wrote:
Please find attached patch to reconserver.
Some comments on the patch (note: I am NOT the maintainer of this
package, nor do I intend to NMU it, I will leave uploading to someone
who is in a position to test the resulting package).
-Build-Depends: debhelper (= 9.0.0), autotools-dev, dpkg-dev (=
1.16.1~), librecon-1.9-dev (= 1.9.6), libsipxtapi-dev (= 3.3.0~test17)
+Build-Depends: debhelper (= 9.0.0), autotools-dev, dpkg-dev (=
1.16.1~), librecon-1.9-dev (= 1.9.6) | librecon-1.10-dev (= 1.10.0),
libsipxtapi-dev (= 3.3.0~test17)
Debian autobuilders only look at the first alternative for a
build-dependency. So if you are going to use alternative
build-dependencies the package that is in the archive MUST be first in
the list.
-Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}, adduser, librecon-1.9
(= 1.9.6), libsipxtapi (= 3.3.0~test17)
+Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}, adduser, librecon-1.9
(= 1.9.6) | librecon-1.10, libsipxtapi (= 3.3.0~test17)
This looks plain wrong, in general a binary needs the version of a
library that it was complied against, not some arbitary version.
Normally this dependency is provided through the shlibs mechanism, if
that isn't adequate then there may be a need to investigate why and do
something locally.
+Description: Fixes needed for compiling with gcc5.2 and above
+ This gets rid of auto_ptr, replacing them with unique_ptr. Also
+ compiler flag for c++ standard to use needs to be added to debian/rules
+ e.g. addition of -std=c++11 into CXXFLAGS.
+ .
+ reconserver (0.10.3-1) unstable; urgency=medium
+ .
+ * New upstream release.
+ * Adds Opus codec support.
+Author: Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.pro
+
+---
+The information above should follow the Patch Tagging Guidelines, please
+checkout http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/ to learn about the format. Here
+are templates for supplementary fields that you might want to add:
+
+Origin: other
+Bug:
+Bug-Debian: https://bugs.debian.org/778103
+Bug-Ubuntu:
+Forwarded: no
+Reviewed-By: name and email of someone who approved the patch
+Last-Update: 2015-08-11
This patch header needs cleaning up. The information extracted from the
changelog is clearly not relavent to this patch and should have been
removed. I also presume Daniel Pocock was not really the author (as if
he was he would presumablly have committed to the VCS and made an upload).
Antti, can you confirm who wrote this patch? was it you?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#778103: reconserver: ftbfs with GCC-5
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 peter green writes: Antti, can you confirm who wrote this patch? was it you? Correct, my patch. I'll Cc: Daniel Pocock if he has simple testing instructions. - -- Antti -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJVylM3AAoJEBFVg3JghEcTZXsQAMH064PT+ld1l4twAXkJgPnw 9i1BAi4m2g953pfoamUZZ2tJD+Bp4mR4XD7fYtLky+LjyISz5JpuJPpnOpAvbko0 DXcts+5DjsgE2/tmYhkm+Sf2hzxDmlTyRCGL7po7kuEIDo2ZVcuI+/r3nhTuGSss Y4Cs7rblQLBk+u51/nFfC1FIBNRwURXFLNTfuHa1jyCqSRIqMqkuwxO1t0JV+zTF JjTwYycUKHNGL4f0yvdI7pemdNfHB08S3Kz3B+mt5+s23nlQDKy0kT/FDgArbdID bik1L4Ojw7WuyAaEAsb+rM9TkZnA9jhb4tgkCaCE7CxjML0M5arswK+3D73s+s0t n0x7AQCyddxw/MnutqwSSg98X26aX7aG/v0/jJQYiA0RGWZOLeEjB4J6rNMTVmE8 nFP22lYGcKhiFPz0wtfBWcLFEfbaGD5+FSjRpCnFl20vbiI29ELNqVg1Ml/ZbOFL 00/I+loNkdpVuXGSOUhGx+Djw8NA/Ej3iQ0N7/XLAA4OMdwjqaelY2qqQPwBirdV cKoIri56+BXq/RtaMQiwCP8RD9+9Di5gXt3jGr4H7gurPZvbm1eQgLr2frGZXWEh UwmNTLwC7qf8MFJS/tTOVXjZI+tW6Izoy1zRaUEXavJ+mmFWC/WLc0hKccfvD5EP KAbyGOugtsRsbOiQrrSV =tB3S -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#778103: reconserver: ftbfs with GCC-5
Daniel Pocock writes: Is the patch intended to be backwards compatible? To my understanding functionality did not change and I tried compiling the package also in current debian testing that has gcc4.9 - no problem. Are you able to submit the patch as a github pull request? Sure, I'll go fork your repo. -- Antti -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#778103: reconserver: ftbfs with GCC-5
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 11/08/15 21:55, Antti Järvinen wrote: peter green writes: Antti, can you confirm who wrote this patch? was it you? Correct, my patch. I'll Cc: Daniel Pocock if he has simple testing instructions. Is the patch intended to be backwards compatible? Are you able to submit the patch as a github pull request? I would then make a new upstream release and test it that way I may also merge the debian/* packaging Git repository with the upstream repository -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJVylUvAAoJEOm1uwJp1aqD5NUP/0MLBpLgAi99TKEBkIV7Hnfj wkNyNAsYqIh1kSDHKObQ5GX+ZlJ8Nx5UP8bENXhA4Ea32YwLYOv252KznRaqm3aT CUJWui5K4ibhW1+OxGJdjUwCqVSqhPSP1dmpLap7YItkLy17urocMjig4/nEp5uU KCoTW7wj7h4n57llNM+aetZ5Y0zCHQCynd4Y1tL9VNH1NGzFZgkJV2eqKgwml6H+ 9E0Pii0go2wk//InJ8WBtgmFQ3FxQ5tYQ5cblKk2kRjUN3IXPeIXWXE9Jhpudkwm yBGeELpCk0cP2wk6EWAMk/zsrz6TZGeDEWHuD60NJIwzhkgWJ3r2KjzMLWQGnYj5 5RZQnKeH1ri2oKc75SbNByxrdCHL9HC0gyMIuIQ9IEqWHO/uFoS/zfAI0XZYHHHQ 1f2MGhbneFCNtW7L64B3wtY7vrxDV6584fHabTCUl4Nr0dY/eVk6l9A/bUGYKJCV 6Q5442SF/pXSfe2KKZhPevHHd6fTMCbS1xdRTRZyxhEmPd3AM1Pupi7Q8Fvkzral nDx+2lWQrRU0GtJOXfQmX0ncjI660jVPp2HTFTyjJjvLQy2YA2AdFVchaqZgrLO7 3lTIUg/YzZJyUHvzAnVx4iNf9395aO6eMvV8xtkbJsSokPMByLzksf0fuRU9KGOS qNthtC+N7sgKZP/h+K/k =Y7lW -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
