Re: flac_1.2.1-3
Am 09.08.2010 18:06, schrieb Adam D. Barratt: The log for #579025 also suggests that fixing it would require rebuilding reverse dependencies; is that the case? No, that's mistakable from the bug log. In order for the fix to have effect on a package (which is going to be built without an install prefix and) which build-depends on libflac, the package needs to get reconfigured to include libflac's fixed libFLAC.m4. - Fabian ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: flac_1.2.1-3
Hi, On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 15:45 +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote: > the pkg-multimedia team has just uploaded a revised flac_1.2.1-3 > package to unstable. This packages contains fixes for two bugs > (#579025 and #585518) which unfortunately required an autoreconf of > the build system. The autoreconf result is applied by means of a > patch, which makes the interdiff quite huge and is the reasons why I > haven't attached it to this mail. #585518 appears to be a wishlist change to support an unofficial port, which wouldn't qualify for an exception on its own. I'm ambivalent about #579025. The bug log indicates that it doesn't actually affect any packages in the archive, as it only occurs when the install prefix is not overriden; it could break things for people compiling local flac-using applications. By your own determination though, it's only a "normal" bug. The log for #579025 also suggests that fixing it would require rebuilding reverse dependencies; is that the case? Regards, Adam ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
flac_1.2.1-3
Dear Release Team, the pkg-multimedia team has just uploaded a revised flac_1.2.1-3 package to unstable. This packages contains fixes for two bugs (#579025 and #585518) which unfortunately required an autoreconf of the build system. The autoreconf result is applied by means of a patch, which makes the interdiff quite huge and is the reasons why I haven't attached it to this mail. How would you like me to proceed convincing you to let this package pass through to testing? In order to check the changes step by step, you may want to check out the packaging GIT repository: http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-multimedia/flac.git;a=summary Best regards, Fabian ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
