Your message dated Sat, 20 Aug 2005 09:38:34 +0900
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#320559: FTBFS: missing build-dep on libxinerama-dev
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 30 Jul 2005 06:29:40 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jul 29 23:29:40 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from 98.69-93-83.reverse.theplanet.com (seed.phpwebhosting.com)
[69.93.83.98]
by spohr.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
id 1Dykqq-0008Td-00; Fri, 29 Jul 2005 23:29:40 -0700
Received: (qmail 14366 invoked from network); 30 Jul 2005 06:29:07 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ike.tooloud.org) (127.0.0.1)
by localhost with SMTP; 30 Jul 2005 06:29:07 -0000
Received: by ike.tooloud.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 30 Jul 2005
02:42:29 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Daniel Bungert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: FTBFS: missing build-dep on libxinerama-dev
X-Mailer: reportbug 3.15
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 02:42:29 -0400
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
Package: ecamegapedal
Version: 0.4.4
Severity: serious
Please add a build-depends on libxinerama-dev.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.6
Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US (charmap=ISO-8859-1)
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 320559-done) by bugs.debian.org; 20 Aug 2005 00:38:35 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Aug 19 17:38:35 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from 68.105.138.210.bn.2iij.net (viper2.netfort.gr.jp)
[210.138.105.68]
by spohr.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
id 1E6HNb-0002kQ-00; Fri, 19 Aug 2005 17:38:35 -0700
Received: (qmail 24835 invoked from network); 20 Aug 2005 00:38:34 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO atoron.dancer.pr.jp.netfort.gr.jp) (127.0.0.1)
by viper2.netfort.gr.jp with SMTP; 20 Aug 2005 00:38:34 -0000
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 09:38:34 +0900
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Daniel Bungert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bug#320559: FTBFS: missing build-dep on libxinerama-dev
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.6
(Marutamachi) APEL/10.6 Emacs/21.4 (i386-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
> > That doesn't seem appropriate; ecamegapedal only pulls in libxinerama as a
> > result of qt-x11-free, which is reported as bug #319305. However, with a
> > sensible (i.e., a Debian) version of libtool, there should be no reason why
> > libXinerama is needed at all; and ecamegapedal does build-depend on libtool,
> > so I *really* don't see why you would get such an error. That's a bug worth
> > investigating and fixing, but it's not a serious bug.
>
> It was an up-to-date unstable box, but the current state of jackd meant
> that if I wanted the audio apps I was used to having, I was going to
> have to revert to stable or start recompiling.
>
> So yes, that was a debian version of libtool. What little investigation I
> did seemed to suggest that what was happening was the result of 319305.
> Due to lack of further info, I'm comfortable classifying this bug as a
> dupe of 319305.
Closing this bug since that bug is already closed.
regards,
junichi
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
