On Tue, 22 Jun 2010, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Unfortunately I don't think that would be acceptable for a stable
> update, as some maintainers started relying on dpkg-buildpackage's
> behaviour of setting those flags and stopped setting them in their
> rules files. So there's a chance of regressions.
I have many different good quality lists from various sources. The prices are
relatively low as well. Drop me a line here: listp...@gmx.com
I'll get you all the details and samples.
Send us an email to rem...@gmx.com we will discontinue from the list
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tag 586572 - patch
Bug #586572 [libdpkg-dev] libdpkg-dev: libdpkg is not built
position-independent (-fPIC)
Removed tag(s) patch.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
586572: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi
tag 586572 - patch
thanks
Hi!
On Sun, 2010-06-20 at 19:12:46 +0200, Denis Washington wrote:
> Package: libdpkg-dev
> Version: 1.15.7.2
> Severity: normal
> Tags: patch
>
> I am trying to build a shared library where libdpkg.a (from libdpkg-dev
> 1.15.7.2, installed on Ubuntu 10.04) should be lin
Hi!
On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 11:19:27 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog writes ("Re: Bug#586691: dpkg-buildpackage and LDFLAGS etc."):
> > forcemerge 560070 586691
> > thanks
> ...
> > We have dpkg-buildflags nowadays for this.
> Thanks. I have just read #560070. Can I request that #5600
Raphael Hertzog writes ("Re: Bug#586691: dpkg-buildpackage and LDFLAGS etc."):
> forcemerge 560070 586691
> thanks
...
> We have dpkg-buildflags nowadays for this.
Thanks. I have just read #560070. Can I request that #560070 be
fixed in a stable release update ?
> We're migrating to a situation
6 matches
Mail list logo
