Hi,
> Well, yes, but do we actually know of any such packages in the archive? I
> don't deny that there's a problem, but that it makes the package unusable? It
> seems a bit over-the-top.
Given the following output:
apt-cache rdepends libzipios++0c2a
libzipios++0c2a
Reverse Depends:
libzipios++-
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 12:55:10AM +0200, Erich Schubert wrote:
> You can't reliably use zipios to build software with it that uses
> autoconf.
> It may even break software on other archs by overriding the configure
> script.
Well, yes, but do we actually know of any such packages in the archive?
Hi,
> > Zipios shouldn't ship it's own "zipios-config.h" config file.
>
> Am I the only one who thinks this severity is inflated? important, yes, but
> grave?
You can't reliably use zipios to build software with it that uses
autoconf.
It may even break software on other archs by overriding the co
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 01:49:02AM +0200, Erich Schubert wrote:
> Package: libzipios++-dev
> Version: 0.1.5.9+cvs.2004.02.07-3.3
> Severity: grave
> Justification: renders package unusable
>
> Zipios shouldn't ship it's own "zipios-config.h" config file.
Am I the only one who thinks this severity
Package: libzipios++-dev
Version: 0.1.5.9+cvs.2004.02.07-3.3
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
Zipios shouldn't ship it's own "zipios-config.h" config file.
That file contains lots of macros such as
#define PACKAGE "zipios++"
#define VERSION "0.1.5.9"
which are just bound to
5 matches
Mail list logo
