Hi Nicolas,
I've finally pushed your patches through to salsa after build testing and
verifying the resulting binary packages packages are equivalent using
debdiff. Differences are seem to come down to to dependency versions
changing:
```
$ debdiff ../ghdl_3.0.0+dfsg2-1_amd64.changes
> This breaks the build for me since I build the source package on bookworm
> (via gbp). I might hold off on this one until dh-builtusing is backported.
Passing -nc to dpkg-buildpackage may fix this, see
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1054125
Else, there is no problem with
Hi Nicolas,
On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 10:58:22PM +0200, Nicolas Boulenguez wrote:
> > honestly the whole link script looks like a hack to me, I prefer the
> > way it was before.
>
> I agree that an executable debian/libghdl-dev.links is a last resort,
> but a reader discovering the package does
Source: ghdl
Followup-For: Bug #916475
Hello.
> honestly the whole link script looks like a hack to me, I prefer the
> way it was before.
I agree that an executable debian/libghdl-dev.links is a last resort,
but a reader discovering the package does not need to
* guess that
Hi Nicolas,
On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 09:03:16AM +0200, Nicolas Boulenguez wrote:
> Source: ghdl
> Followup-For: Bug #916475
>
> A rebased and extended list of suggestions is attached.
Thanks for taking the time.
> Debdiff reports no change in the binary packages.
Unfortunately
5 matches
Mail list logo
