On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 09:02:56PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > On 12-10-13 at 04:08pm, Geert Stappers wrote: > > Here a message from the Utrecht BSP 2012. > > ( http://wiki.debian.org/BSP/2012/10/nl/Utrecht ) > > > > Bugreport 685540 is release critical according > > http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/other/testing.html > > so I spend some time on it and go it fixed. > > > > When compiling with asterisk installed, I get a loadable app_flite.so > > > > In other words: A build-depend on asterisk solves this issue. > > I believe your reasoning is flawed: Compiling _without_ adding a > build-dependency on asterisk _also_ makes app_flite.so loadable.
That does makes sense, at least it matches my observation: "module was loadable after a recompile" > > I gonna do a non-maintainer upload to the 10 days delay queue. > > Thanks for the attempt - but please cancel that misleading upload unless > you can provide additional info contraditing what I wrote above. There was a `dput --delayed 10` down and after that a `dcut`. In ten day we know for sure that cancel was succesfull. If my `dcut` was unsuccesfull, we get a "binNMU" :-/ > The specific issue needs only a simple binNMU, That information is now in this bugreport. > which the release team has judged is wrong to do. Having the reason in this BR would be nice. > The underlying issue is that asterisk fails to provide proper shlibs > hinting, so that packages building against asterisk do not get versioned > binary dependencies that can reveal leed for binNMU later on. That ? binary dependencies that can reveal need for binNMU later on. That > underlying issue needs to be reported against asterisk and fixed there. The Debian maintainers of asterisk are in the Cc. Reporting the issue in a BR is now, wheezy release freeze, not done. Groeten Geert Stappers -- > And is there a policy on top-posting vs. bottom-posting? Yes. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org