Processed: Re: Bug#463795: Unbuildable
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: severity 463795 normal Bug#463795: dsniff: FTBFS on etch Severity set to `normal' from `serious' 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#463795: Unbuildable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Am So den 2. Mär 2008 um 1:03 schrieb Cyril Brulebois: The problem still exists. The package is unbuildable (with the build dependencies in the package). Maybe you miss some of them? Nope??? [...] which is the default in stable. (This is the reason why I need to recompile it as you did compile it with a glibc which is not compatible with stable (2.4) kernel.) ??? but I didn't catch the rebuild happened on stable (although one might have induced it from the APT pinning, but stating explicitely the build environment is always preferred, i.e. at least suite + arch). So if a package need a special build environment that should be handled by the right dependencies. If only the gcc (for example) in sid or experimental can be used to build the software there has to be a versioned dependency for. Note that I'm not the maintainer of the package, I was just walking the list of RC bugs. Ok. So let's see what the maintainer is thinking about. I'm not sure how to handle such a bug, anyway. Having versioned build dependency for the build part which is not new enough in etch? Let's tag it ???etch???, that should do the trick, so that it no longer appears on the list of RC bugs for the next release, and so that people working on fixing RC bugs on stable can identify it at first glance (but I guess people are more actively working on fixing RC bugs for the next stable release). Well, so it will stay RC for the current release. And the problem might be also happen in future with wrong dependencies in the next release too. There might be different build environment in sid and frozen/testing that might the bug hit again. Regards Klaus - -- Klaus Ethgenhttp://www.ethgen.de/ pub 2048R/D1A4EDE5 2000-02-26 Klaus Ethgen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fingerprint: D7 67 71 C4 99 A6 D4 FE EA 40 30 57 3C 88 26 2B -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBR8pwP5+OKpjRpO3lAQIvPwf/XgTCmhZsGx/MSHEWHdIeaLJ1aP4raPsk pF7pHDfdZMtay+UFXekgAus59zZcdp1C+8Oa6VCEOTniOFuDHLdUqpr00wLs8TcR g4Pg+kwqemU3/Kx2bsMSyqNryUj98fAKw/FbCyJJZ+H2PqSnlTWe++dO6E1KhEaG H5zrGxQ/E8HP9ZcKsrkAh3wEkWBrJCksWjsreeRKajWZKFkJy8m/tNonTpzO/J4j 8vNcySJJsojkgjBCXbg4GkYdjseHNLA8SZ2P4L9+emImn70Ueeh7lFWhS+GiYov+ HUO0QSM8+MPeW9H7CB7o94uj+wnCRpggSq9KRHg7kQWSqWArOXAm0A== =Io1j -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: Re: Bug#463795: Unbuildable
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: reopen 463795 Bug#463795: Unbuildable Bug reopened, originator not changed. retitle 463795 dsniff: FTBFS on etch Bug#463795: Unbuildable Changed Bug title to `dsniff: FTBFS on etch' from `Unbuildable'. tag 463795 etch Bug#463795: dsniff: FTBFS on etch There were no tags set. Tags added: etch 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#463795: Unbuildable
reopen 463795 retitle 463795 dsniff: FTBFS on etch tag 463795 etch thanks On 29/02/2008, Klaus Ethgen wrote: The problem still exists. The package is unbuildable (with the build dependencies in the package). Maybe you miss some of them? Nope… Maybe you have build dependencies to special gcc version? I have: gcc --version gcc (GCC) 4.1.2 20061115 (prerelease) (Debian 4.1.1-21) which is the default in stable. (This is the reason why I need to recompile it as you did compile it with a glibc which is not compatible with stable (2.4) kernel.) … but I didn't catch the rebuild happened on stable (although one might have induced it from the APT pinning, but stating explicitely the build environment is always preferred, i.e. at least suite + arch). However, if you need a special gcc version or a other special version of one library, please note them in build dependencies. Note that I'm not the maintainer of the package, I was just walking the list of RC bugs. I'm not sure how to handle such a bug, anyway. Let's tag it “etch”, that should do the trick, so that it no longer appears on the list of RC bugs for the next release, and so that people working on fixing RC bugs on stable can identify it at first glance (but I guess people are more actively working on fixing RC bugs for the next stable release). Thanks for clarifying. Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois pgpgHHHL4mVWo.pgp Description: PGP signature
