Hilmar Preusse hill...@web.de wrote:
tags 664074 - wontfix
tags 664074 + patch
stop
On 16.03.12 Norbert Preining (prein...@logic.at) wrote:
Hi,
I didn't test it yet. However I'd vote for keeping the patch. Will
have a look at that.
Warning, please only patch .am files, note .in,
On 20.03.12 Frank Küster (fr...@debian.org) wrote:
Hilmar Preusse hill...@web.de wrote:
Hi,
I guess I found the right place to change, patch attached. After
running the build the warnings are gone. I did not commit it yet.
Did you run debian/rules clean and rebuild? I'm not sure whether
Hilmar Preusse hill...@web.de wrote:
On 20.03.12 Frank Küster (fr...@debian.org) wrote:
Hilmar Preusse hill...@web.de wrote:
Hi,
I guess I found the right place to change, patch attached. After
running the build the warnings are gone. I did not commit it yet.
Did you run debian/rules
On Di, 20 MÀr 2012, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
I guess I found the right place to change, patch attached. After
running the build the warnings are gone. I did not commit it yet.
Please commit.
Best wishes
Norbert
Norbert
On 20.03.12 Frank Küster (fr...@debian.org) wrote:
Hilmar Preusse hill...@web.de wrote:
Hi,
I unpackaged the original sources (dpkg-source -x), changed the
two am files, then run fakeroot debian/rules binary. The
warning messages are not visible in the build log any more.
You really
tags 664074 - wontfix
tags 664074 + patch
stop
On 16.03.12 Norbert Preining (prein...@logic.at) wrote:
Hi,
I didn't test it yet. However I'd vote for keeping the patch. Will
have a look at that.
Warning, please only patch .am files, note .in, since we are
running reautoconf.
I guess I
On 16.03.12 Norbert Preining (prein...@logic.at) wrote:
On Do, 15 Mär 2012, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
Hi,
Why is it dangerous the use/send upstream the old fix we had
once?
Does it apply? ANd I am NOT sure that it will be acepted, because
on other OS/Arch combinations these libs need to be
Hi,
I didn't test it yet. However I'd vote for keeping the patch. Will
have a look at that.
Great! For sure it doesnot apply out of the box, that I checked whdn building
the initial packages. But if it is easy to adapt, fine with me.
Warning, please only patch .am files, note .in, since we
Package: texlive-binaries
Version: 2011.20120307-1
Severity: wishlist
Dear Maintainer,
from the build logs of the latest versions of our packages:
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: dependency on libXext.so.6 could be avoided if
debian/texlive-binaries/usr/bin/mf
debian/texlive-binaries/usr/bin/xdvi-xaw
tags 664074 + wontfix
thanks
Hi HIlmar,
On Do, 15 Mär 2012, Hilmar Preuße wrote:
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: dependency on libXext.so.6 could be avoided if
debian/texlive-binaries/usr/bin/mf
I know.
#replaced by --as-needed for dh_autoreconf#60_unneeded_linking
And also, it does not apply
On 15.03.12 Norbert Preining (prein...@logic.at) wrote:
Hi,
If someone else want's to investigate that, and even better, send
fixes to upstream, or whatever, fine with me. But not me. - +
wontfix ;-)
Why is it dangerous the use/send upstream the old fix we had once?
H.
--
sigmentation
On Do, 15 Mär 2012, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
Why is it dangerous the use/send upstream the old fix we had once?
Does it apply? ANd I am NOT sure that it will be acepted, because
on other OS/Arch combinations these libs need to be linked in.
It is very very specific requirement of Debian ...
Best
12 matches
Mail list logo
