Bug#321220: qjackctl compiled against nonthreaded version of libqt3
Hi, I'm on holiday until the 15th, feel free to ITP. Guenter Zitat von Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Package: qjackctl > Version: 0.2.18-1 > Severity: serious > > This version was -- apparently accidentally -- built against libqt3c102 > rather than libqt3c102-mt. All previous versions were built against > the multithreaded version of the library, and there was no mention of > this change in the Changelog, so I can only assume it was a mistake. > > The nonthreaded version of the library is deprecated and shouldn't be used, > this is the only program in all of unstable to depend on it, and goodness > only knows what bugs will result. > > You want > Build-Depends: libqt3-mt-dev > NOT > Build-Depends: libqt3-dev. > > This should certainly not get into etch in this state! > > It's OK to fix this before the C++ transition; libstdc++ has versioned > symbols, > so it's OK to depend directly on libstdc++6 and indirectly on libstdc++5. > > However, if you aren't worried about users of unstable hitting weird results > due to the mislinking, it's reasonable to wait until the C++ transition -- > but in that case you should make sure the package does not get into etch > in this state. > > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#439077: muse won't run (liblash.so.1: No such file or directory)
On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 11:38 +0200, Daniel Kobras wrote: > Hi! > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 12:30:40AM -0400, Ethan Glasser-Camp wrote: > > It seems as though muse is linked against liblash.so.1, though the > > liblash2 package only provides liblash.so.2. Below are the commands I > > used to come to this conclusion; if I'm grievously mistaken, please > > let me know. Thanks for your time! > > You are correct, and I assume this is what "Fixed library version > problem" in lash's changelog entry for the most recent upload means. In > other words, all packages built with liblash-dev 0.5.3-1 need to be > rebuilt. Günther, is my understanding correct? Yes, correct. Definitely my fault and I should have advised the maintainers of possibly affected packages about this problem. I am trying to figure out the steps I can take currently, but basically recompiling the package should fix the problem. Günter > > Regards, > > Daniel. > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#441490: patch to fix ivtools FTBFS #44190
Hi, Thanks for the patch. You are right about the new upstream version, I should have done that a long time ago but I just can' t find the time to do so. Ivtools is up for adoption for several years already, so the way the things are now is that either someone takes over or we stay with the version we have. Greetings, Gunter On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > tags 441490 + patch > thanks > > Hi ivtools people (and hi, AM!)-- > > Attached please find a patch which gets ivtools to not FTBFS any more. > > Interestingly, i couldn't replicate the specific errors reported in > #441490, and the FTBFS that i ran into building ivtools on an up-to-date > sid system looked a lot more like #461680 (which was ostensibly already > resolved by 1.1.3-5.4). > > hth, > >--dkg > > PS according to #303956, a newer upstream version has been available for > 4 years. And the latest release according to upstream appears to be > 1.2.6, released in July 2008. There are a number of other outstanding > bugs against the version of ivtools in debian, which appears to be a > dead end in terms of upstream support (last release on the 1.1 line was > in 2004). I can't help but think it would be a good idea to pick up the > latest version from upstream to avoid maintaining such an old version > just for debian. >
Bug#441490: patch to fix ivtools FTBFS #44190
Hi, Go ahead with the NMU. I do not have plans to upgrade soon. Best, Gunter On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > ( also Cc'ing Kari Pahula, who signalled an intent to adopt ivtools in > http://bugs.debian.org/164800 ) > > On 03/24/2009 11:23 AM, Günter Geiger wrote: > > Thanks for the patch. You are right about the new upstream version, I > should > > have done that a long time ago but I just can' t find the time to do so. > > Ivtools is up for adoption for several years already, so the way the > things > > are now is that either someone takes over or we stay with the version we > > have. > > Would you object to an NMU to get the current version of the package > building from source again? I'm afraid i don't have the bandwidth (or > any specific need, knowledge or history with the upstream project) to > adopt it myself. > > Or do you have plans to make 1.1.3-6 (folding in the various NMUs) soon? > > Thanks for your prompt response, > >--dkg > >
