On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 09:22:44PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
The versions of the programs he used for autoreconf were:
* automake/aclocal 1.9.6
* autoconf 2.59
* config.{guess,sub} timestamp='2006-07-02'
* ltmain.sh 1.5.22
Those should all work without problems. I'm
On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 10:31:13AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 05:07:52AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
The versions of the programs he used for autoreconf were:
* automake/aclocal 1.9.6
* autoconf 2.59
* config.{guess,sub} timestamp='2006-07-02'
* ltmain.sh
On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 05:07:52AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
The versions of the programs he used for autoreconf were:
* automake/aclocal 1.9.6
* autoconf 2.59
* config.{guess,sub} timestamp='2006-07-02'
* ltmain.sh 1.5.22
Those should all work without problems. I'm guessing it's
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 05:15:52PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
Why does this only happen on amd64? I don't really want an
architecture-specific kludge in the package, let's fix the tools to be
consistent. Or at least produce useful error information (e.g. crapping
out instead of
On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 02:00:49AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
The versions of the programs he used for autoreconf were:
* automake/aclocal 1.9.6
* autoconf 2.59
* config.{guess,sub} timestamp='2006-07-02'
* ltmain.sh 1.5.22
Those should all work without problems. I'm guessing it's
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 05:15:52PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
Since I don't really have any idea how to libtoolize properly, I think
it would be best if you or someone else knowledgeable could patch it.
Here is a patch that works for me.
Thanks a lot. I've forwarded the essential part of it
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 07:17:42PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
Why does this only happen on amd64? I don't really want an
architecture-specific kludge in the package, let's fix the tools to be
consistent. Or at least produce useful error information (e.g. crapping
out instead of letting bad
On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 12:09:03AM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
Can someone please suggest a proper solution to #395529?
What happened there, really? Why is the package not getting built properly
on amd64 only?
% cd debian/pool/main/m/maildrop
% for i in maildrop_2.0.2-11_*.deb; do dpkg -I $i
On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 08:54:28PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 11:54:47PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ dpkg -x maildrop_2.0.3-1_amd64.deb tmp/maildrop/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ objdump -x tmp/maildrop/usr/bin/maildrop | grep auth
NEEDED
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 04:31:35AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ dpkg -x maildrop_2.0.3-1_amd64.deb tmp/maildrop/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ objdump -x tmp/maildrop/usr/bin/maildrop | grep auth
NEEDED libcourierauth.so.0
RPATH
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 02:22:06PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
BTW, couldn't this also be addressed just by adding a
-l/usr/lib/courier-authlib option to dh_shlibdeps?
That seems to work too.
Why does this only happen on amd64? I don't really want an
architecture-specific kludge in the
On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 11:54:47PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ dpkg -x maildrop_2.0.3-1_amd64.deb tmp/maildrop/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ objdump -x tmp/maildrop/usr/bin/maildrop | grep auth
NEEDED libcourierauth.so.0
RPATH /usr/lib:/usr/lib/courier-authlib
Hi,
Can someone please suggest a proper solution to #395529?
What happened there, really? Why is the package not getting built properly
on amd64 only?
% cd debian/pool/main/m/maildrop
% for i in maildrop_2.0.2-11_*.deb; do dpkg -I $i | grep Depends | grep -q
courier-authlib || echo $i; done
This one time, at band camp, Josip Rodin said:
Hi,
Can someone please suggest a proper solution to #395529?
What happened there, really? Why is the package not getting built properly
on amd64 only?
% cd debian/pool/main/m/maildrop
% for i in maildrop_2.0.2-11_*.deb; do dpkg -I $i | grep
14 matches
Mail list logo
