ma, 2006-01-16 kello 00:45 +0100, Bart Martens kirjoitti:
> I've had a look at your patches, and I didn't feel comfortable with the
> idea of adding a generated list of parent directories. I think it's
> better to prevent that the forgotten directories become forgotten. The
> patch below does tha
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 04:34:43PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 06:05:43PM +0300, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 10:14:16PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > > Comment to myself: The current patch probably breaks dh_shlibdeps
> > > -l optio
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 06:00:28PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 03:18:01AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > # Now: See if it is in this package. See if it is in any other package.
> > sub searchdir {
> > my $dir = shift;
> > if(opendir(DIR, $dir)) {
> > my
Sigh. Patch really attached this time.
--
Branden Robinson | GPG signed/encrypted mail welcome
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 1024D/9C0BCBFB
Progeny Linux Systems | D5F6 D4C9 E25B 3D37 068C
| 72E8 0F42 191A 9C0B CBFB
Index: dpkg/branches/dpkg-opensolaris/src/mai
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tag 153305 + patch
Bug#153305: [DPKG] doesn't pass --admindir and --root to dpkg-query
There were no tags set.
Bug#271041: [DPKG] doesn't pass --admindir and --root to dpkg-query
Bug#282853: [DPKG] doesn't pass --admindir and --root to dpkg-query
Bug#30
tag 153305 + patch
thanks
I believe I have a fix for this bug. I spent a while considering more
generalized solutions, including adding a field to the cmdinfo structure
for "pass this flag to backends", but decided against it for the reasons
noted in the comments.
This patch compiles and works a
Quoting Stephan Kramer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> While you're at it you might want to replace the erronous translation of
> src/configure.c:602
> "Y or I : install the package maintainer's version\n"
>
> now translated as:
>
> "Y of N : installeer de versie van de pakketbeheerder\n"
>
>
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.10
> tags 258192 moreinfo
Bug#258192: malformed build-depends entry confusing dpkg-checkbuilddeps
There were no tags set.
Tags added: moreinfo
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
Your message dated Tue, 24 Jan 2006 18:39:56 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Fixed
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 03:18:01AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> # Now: See if it is in this package. See if it is in any other package.
> sub searchdir {
> my $dir = shift;
> if(opendir(DIR, $dir)) {
> my @dirents = readdir(DIR);
> closedir(DIR);
> for (@dirents) {
>
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.10
> tags 338863 unreproducible
Bug#338863: dpkg-parsechangelog: failure: tail of debian/changelog died from
signal 11
There were no tags set.
Tags added: unreproducible
>
End of message
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 07:06:47PM +0300, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> But if ldd does not dislike unresolved libraries, I see no other problems
> with dropping -l. Library files from non-standard paths won't be found by
> dpkg anyway, so can't be processed in way other than shlibs.local
shlib
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 06:43:02PM +0300, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> > dpkg-shlibdeps calls ldd, which will just fail if LD_LIBRARY_PATH
> > won't point to directories with local libraries.
>
> That's not true. ldd will just happily print "libfoo.so.1 => not found"
> and exit with exit code
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 06:43:02PM +0300, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> dpkg-shlibdeps calls ldd, which will just fail if LD_LIBRARY_PATH won't
> point to directories with local libraries.
That's not true. ldd will just happily print "libfoo.so.1 => not found"
and exit with exit code 0. So this
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 06:05:43PM +0300, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 10:14:16PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > > Comment to myself: The current patch probably breaks dh_shlibdeps
> > > -l option because it doesn't honor LD_LIBRARY_PATH. Can someone
> > > tell
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 06:05:43PM +0300, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 10:14:16PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > Comment to myself: The current patch probably breaks dh_shlibdeps
> > -l option because it doesn't honor LD_LIBRARY_PATH. Can someone
> > tell me a packa
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 10:14:16PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > I've implemented this option. Patch and new script (since the patch is
> > garbled with a little code clean-up I did while going through the
> > script) are attached.
> >
> > Comments and/or testing welcome.
>
> Comment to my
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 10:14:16PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> I've implemented this option. Patch and new script (since the patch is
> garbled with a little code clean-up I did while going through the
> script) are attached.
>
> Comments and/or testing welcome.
Comment to myself: The curr
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tag 103024 + fixed-in-experimental
Bug#103024: dpkg-shlibdeps mostly useless on the Hurd
Tags were: pending patch
Bug#145714: dpkg-shlibdeps doesn't work correctly on the Hurd
Bug#164020: expect should depend on libtcl8.3 under GNU/Hurd
Bug#285857: dpkg
19 matches
Mail list logo