Bug#439642: Probably something debian buildd specific

2007-10-01 Thread Javier Fernandez-Sanguino 
2007/10/1, Cyril Brulebois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I think you mean NEW. Incoming is , and is
> described in .

True, got confused, meant NEW.

Regards

Javier



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#439642: Probably something debian buildd specific

2007-10-01 Thread Cyril Brulebois 
Javier Fernandez-Sanguino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (01/10/2007):
> Well, a patch is a patch. A comment is *not* a patch.

…

> I've already fixed this and uploaded a new version of the package (in
> INCOMING, since it introduces a new package). Introducing a new
> package and moving files over to it is a non-trivial task.

I think you mean NEW. Incoming is , and is
described in .

-- 
Cyril Brulebois


pgpHMe6dEhGeT.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Bug#439642: Probably something debian buildd specific

2007-10-01 Thread Javier Fernandez-Sanguino 
2007/10/1, Cyril Brulebois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > And where's the patch?
>
> "Put the .so in the appropriate package", do you really expect more? You
> might have wanted to remove the "help" tag instead, since you've now got
> the hint you were looking for, haven't you?

Well, a patch is a patch. A comment is *not* a patch.

I've already fixed this and uploaded a new version of the package (in
INCOMING, since it introduces a new package). Introducing a new
package and moving files over to it is a non-trivial task.

Regards

Javier



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#439642: Probably something debian buildd specific

2007-10-01 Thread Josselin Mouette 
Le dimanche 30 septembre 2007 à 22:27 +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino
Peña a écrit :
> > I'd also advise to use ???-module -avoid-version??? to build plugins, no
> > need to have .0.0.0 things for them, but please fix that bug first.
> 
> Why shouldn't there be a versioning for the modules? If libraries are in a
> separate package (as they should be) versioninig might be appropiate.

Versioning modules is not done the same way as versioning libraries. If
the modules' ABI changes, they should be put in a directory with a
different name. In all cases, you only need a .so for each module,
without versioning (or the lack of versioning that .0.0.0 indicates).

Cheers,
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Bug#439642: Probably something debian buildd specific

2007-10-01 Thread Cyril Brulebois 
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (30/09/2007):
> > I'd also advise to use “-module -avoid-version” to build plugins, no
> > need to have .0.0.0 things for them, but please fix that bug first.
> 
> Why shouldn't there be a versioning for the modules? If libraries are
> in a separate package (as they should be) versioninig might be
> appropiate.

It is very common to have plugins built from the same source package and
to not version them, which upstream usually doesn't know about. Reading
the libtool (and more generally autoconf and automake) manual(s) helps.

> > An NMU might happen before monday since there's an ongoing BSP.
> 
> And where's the patch?

“Put the .so in the appropriate package”, do you really expect more? You
might have wanted to remove the “help” tag instead, since you've now got
the hint you were looking for, haven't you?

-- 
Cyril Brulebois


pgpARJudUrbHA.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Processed: Re: Bug#439642: Probably something debian buildd specific

2007-09-30 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System 
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> tags 439642 -patch
Bug#439642: Snort does not work on amd64, tries to load 32-bit libraries
Tags were: patch help
Tags removed: patch

> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#439642: Probably something debian buildd specific

2007-09-30 Thread Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña 
tags 439642 -patch
thanks

On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 05:51:10AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Why the hell is a package containing .so an Architecture: all package?!

It seems to have been an omission in moving the /usr/lib contents from
snort-common to the snort binary packages.

> I'd also advise to use ???-module -avoid-version??? to build plugins, no
> need to have .0.0.0 things for them, but please fix that bug first.

Why shouldn't there be a versioning for the modules? If libraries are in a
separate package (as they should be) versioninig might be appropiate.


> An NMU might happen before monday since there's an ongoing BSP.

And where's the patch?

Regards

Javier



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#439642: Probably something debian buildd specific

2007-09-29 Thread Cyril Brulebois 
tag 439642 patch
thanks

Sami Liedes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (24/09/2007):
> When I build snort on my sid amd64 box, the .so files get built as 64
> bit as they should. So this is probably something debian buildd
> specific.

Indeed.

Why the hell is a package containing .so an Architecture: all package?!

I'd also advise to use “-module -avoid-version” to build plugins, no
need to have .0.0.0 things for them, but please fix that bug first.

An NMU might happen before monday since there's an ongoing BSP.

-- 
Cyril Brulebois


pgprpI5scOIGh.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Processed: Re: Bug#439642: Probably something debian buildd specific

2007-09-29 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System 
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> tag 439642 patch
Bug#439642: Snort does not work on amd64, tries to load 32-bit libraries
Tags were: help
Tags added: patch

> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#439642: Probably something debian buildd specific

2007-09-24 Thread Sami Liedes 
Hi,

When I build snort on my sid amd64 box, the .so files get built as 64
bit as they should. So this is probably something debian buildd
specific.

Sami


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature