Bug#327982: konserve: uninstallable; needs rebuild for the Qt/KDE transition
Hi Alejandro, On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 10:48:31AM +0200, Alejandro Exojo wrote: El Martes, 13 de Septiembre de 2005 01:47, Adeodato Simó escribió: Finally, if there's a strong reason for which your package should not be NMUed, please note so in this bug report. Prospective NMUers will read your reasoning, and will decide if it's strong enough to delay their upload. I've sent my prepared package to my usual sponsor. If he doesn't have time to upload this week, I will ask for another sponsor. If you want to NMU this package, please, ask me first so we can cooperate. My package is uploaded here: http://darkshines.net/debian/dists/unstable/konserve/ The patch 01_admin_update.diff doesn't appear to apply cleanly to the sources. Are you aware of this? Also, the -2 diff includes subversion metadata which the -1 version did not. If you can address these two issues, I'd be happy to sponsor the upload for you if your usual sponsor isn't able to. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#327982: konserve: uninstallable; needs rebuild for the Qt/KDE transition
El Viernes, 16 de Septiembre de 2005 14:01, escribió: http://darkshines.net/debian/dists/unstable/konserve/ The patch 01_admin_update.diff doesn't appear to apply cleanly to the sources. Are you aware of this? No, I don't know how I missed this. I built the package two times (one with pbuilder, and one with dpkg-buildpackage), so I think its time to put off my sunglasses while I'm hacking. 8-) Also, the -2 diff includes subversion metadata which the -1 version did not. Yes, I'm aware of this, and lintian reminded me too. It's just for convenience while I'm changing things. I will delete the .svn stuff in the final package. :-) If you can address these two issues, I'd be happy to sponsor the upload for you if your usual sponsor isn't able to. That's great! Riku Voipio also offered to sponsor me, so now that you have looked at konserve, what about sponsoring it, and keeping kxmleditor to Riku? This way we can balance the load, and I can learn from two sponsors. Greetings. -- Alex (a.k.a. suy) - GPG ID 0x0B8B0BC2 http://darkshines.net/ - Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#327982: konserve: uninstallable; needs rebuild for the Qt/KDE transition
El Martes, 13 de Septiembre de 2005 01:47, Adeodato Simó escribió: Finally, if there's a strong reason for which your package should not be NMUed, please note so in this bug report. Prospective NMUers will read your reasoning, and will decide if it's strong enough to delay their upload. I've sent my prepared package to my usual sponsor. If he doesn't have time to upload this week, I will ask for another sponsor. If you want to NMU this package, please, ask me first so we can cooperate. My package is uploaded here: http://darkshines.net/debian/dists/unstable/konserve/ -- Alex (a.k.a. suy) - GPG ID 0x0B8B0BC2 http://darkshines.net/ - Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#327982: konserve: uninstallable; needs rebuild for the Qt/KDE transition
Package: konserve Version: 0.10.3-1 Severity: grave Tags: sid Hello, This is a grave bug filed against your package because it depends on libqt3c102-mt, which no longer exists, thus rendering yor package uninstallable in unstable. As part of the C++ ABI transition, this library has moved to the libqt3-mt package. Simply recompiling and uploading your package should be enough to fix this; as per this mail [1], you need not bump your Qt, kdelibs or aRts build-dependencies. Beware, though, that that may not be the case for all the involved librares. Also, make sure that you build the package in an up to date and clean sid environment, so that final dependencies are correct. Please do this as soon as possible in order to accelerate the Qt/KDE transition to testing. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/09/msg0.html Perhaps you find that your package fails to compile with gcc4. If that's the case, there's probably a bug about it in the BTS, and it may include a patch. If not (or if you have doubts about the correctness of the patch), you may be able to find a fix in upstream's CVS, or in the Ubuntu distribution. If your package fails only in arm, m68k, and hppa, see instructions in the above mail. Finally, if there's a strong reason for which your package should not be NMUed, please note so in this bug report. Prospective NMUers will read your reasoning, and will decide if it's strong enough to delay their upload. Thanks for your cooperation, and happy hacking! P.S.: There may be an already reported bug against this package for this very same reason. I've checked for that, and will be merging the bugs soon. The reason for still filing this bug was to have the opportunity of including the small bits of information above. I apologize for the inconvenience. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
