Hi,
> Unless I'm misinterpreting ant-optional's dep(s), it already covers ant.
> Is
> that insufficient for this usage?
In theory no. In practice (and that's what Debian wants) it's more safe to
specify what you use, regardless of whether something happens to be pulled in
by something else.
Re
Hi,
Apologies for the delayed response; I've been away from Internet access for
a bit.
On Nov 24, 2011 7:49 AM, "Rene Engelhard" wrote:
>
> You don't need ant *and* ant-optional? Sorry, I can't believe that, I
think you need ant either way, so ...
>
Unless I'm misinterpreting ant-optional's dep
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tag 648916 - patch
Bug #648916 [src:libloader] libloader: FTBFS due to missing build-dependency on
ant-optional
Removed tag(s) patch.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
648916: http://bugs.debian.org
tag 648916 - patch
thanks
> Tags: patch
> User: ubuntu-de...@lists.ubuntu.com
Wrong. There is no *correct* patch here. Removing the tag.
> This source package FTBFS in Debian and Ubuntu due to a missing
> component, junit, so we need to use ant-optional as the build-dep
> instead of ant. Thanks
Package: src:libloader
Version: 1.1.6.dfsg-2
Severity: important
Tags: patch
User: ubuntu-de...@lists.ubuntu.com
Usertags: origin-ubuntu precise ubuntu-patch
This source package FTBFS in Debian and Ubuntu due to a missing
component, junit, so we need to use ant-optional as the build-dep
instead o
5 matches
Mail list logo
