On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 14:32 +0200, Andreas Henriksson wrote: > Hello! > > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:15:45AM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > [...] > > > ++#if HAVE_QUVI > > > ++#libexec_PROGRAMS = totem-pl-parser-videosite > > > ++#totem_pl_parser_videosite_SOURCES = videosite-parser.c > > > ++#totem_pl_parser_videosite_CFLAGS = $(QUVI_CFLAGS) > > > -DLIBEXECDIR=\""$(libexecdir)"\" > > > ++#totem_pl_parser_videosite_LDADD = $(QUVI_LIBS) > > > ++#endif > > > > AFAICS, videosite-parser.c is what uses quvi, and since it isn't built > > anymore > > with this patch, there's really no quvi support here. You would have to keep > > building videosite-parser.c into the totem-pl-parser-videosite binary, but > > patching it to use the old quvi API (no idea how hard that would be). > > This is fallout from trying to manually merge the conflicts after > patch -R .... this part is not a problem, but there are other places > where I didn't manage to correctly fix up conflicts indeed! > Do not use it, even if gnutls gets fixed.
Why not push for the newer libquvi to be included, instead of relying on the old version that's unsupported (which is probably not that much of a problem) but for which the scripts are completely out of maintenance? Given the nature of those scripts, churn is fairly high, and outdated scripts which target the 0.4 versions are unusable. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
