Re: lintian goes wild?

2001-09-09 Thread Joey Hess
Christian T. Steigies wrote: main::(/usr/lib/perl/5.6.1/asm/unistd.ph:114): 114:eval 'sub __NR_iopl () { not supported;}' unless defined(__NR_iopl); On i386, this line is: eval 'sub __NR_iopl () {110;}' unless defined(__NR_iopl); Hypothesis: on m68k, iopl() is not supported, or

Re: lintian goes wild?

2001-09-09 Thread Simon Richter
On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, Christian T. Steigies wrote: Operator or semicolon missing before supported at (eval 115) line 1. Ambiguous use of resolved as operator at (eval 115) line 1. Unquoted string supported may clash with future reserved word at (eval 112) line 1. Known issue, see #92122.

Re: lintian goes wild?

2001-09-09 Thread Joey Hess
Christian T. Steigies wrote: #define __NR_olduname 109 #define __NR_iopl /* 110 */ not supported #define __NR_vhangup111 #define __NR_idle /* 112 */ Obsolete #define __NR_vm86 /* 113 */ not supported #define __NR_wait4

Re: clearing NMU fixed bugs

2001-09-09 Thread Colin Watson
On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 11:17:47PM +0300, Baruch Even wrote: I've taken over wvdial package with permission. The package had several bugs fixed in former NMUs and I've uploaded a new version to fix another one, but the bugs fixed in former NMUs are still marked as fixed in NMU instead of being

Re: lintian goes wild?

2001-09-09 Thread Sean 'Shaleh' Perry
Unquoted string supported may clash with future reserved word at (eval 112) line 1. Operator or semicolon missing before supported at (eval 112) line 1. Ambiguous use of resolved as operator at (eval 112) line 1. Unquoted string supported may clash with future reserved word at (eval 115)

Re: lintian goes wild?

2001-09-09 Thread Matt Zimmerman
On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 09:45:09PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: Unquoted string supported may clash with future reserved word at (eval 112) line 1. Operator or semicolon missing before supported at (eval 112) line 1. Ambiguous use of resolved as operator at (eval 112) line 1.

Re: lintian goes wild?

2001-09-09 Thread Christian T. Steigies
On Sun, Sep 09, 2001 at 01:32:27AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 09:45:09PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: Unquoted string supported may clash with future reserved word at (eval 112) line 1. Operator or semicolon missing before supported at (eval 112) line

Re: lintian goes wild?

2001-09-09 Thread Joey Hess
Christian T. Steigies wrote: main::(/usr/lib/perl/5.6.1/asm/unistd.ph:114): 114:eval 'sub __NR_iopl () { not supported;}' unless defined(__NR_iopl); On i386, this line is: eval 'sub __NR_iopl () {110;}' unless defined(__NR_iopl); Hypothesis: on m68k, iopl() is not supported, or

Re: lintian goes wild?

2001-09-09 Thread Christian T. Steigies
On Sun, Sep 09, 2001 at 12:43:34PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: Christian T. Steigies wrote: main::(/usr/lib/perl/5.6.1/asm/unistd.ph:114): 114:eval 'sub __NR_iopl () { not supported;}' unless defined(__NR_iopl); On i386, this line is: eval 'sub __NR_iopl () {110;}' unless

Re: lintian goes wild?

2001-09-09 Thread Simon Richter
On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, Christian T. Steigies wrote: Operator or semicolon missing before supported at (eval 115) line 1. Ambiguous use of resolved as operator at (eval 115) line 1. Unquoted string supported may clash with future reserved word at (eval 112) line 1. Known issue, see #92122.