* Sune Vuorela , 2014-04-04, 08:01:
It's a pkgkde-symbolshelper(1)'s (from the pkg-kde-tools package)
thing. But AFIACS pkgkde-symbolshelper doesn't have any documentation,
so the “is not explained” still holds. :/
http://pkg-kde.alioth.debian.org/symbolfiles.html
If it's not in the manpage
On 2014-04-04, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> It's a pkgkde-symbolshelper(1)'s (from the pkg-kde-tools package) thing.
> But AFIACS pkgkde-symbolshelper doesn't have any documentation, so the
> “is not explained” still holds. :/
http://pkg-kde.alioth.debian.org/symbolfiles.html
> Hopefully it's a matter
* Wookey , 2014-04-04, 02:38:
The package has already been ported and bug filed with patch:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=726402 which updates
the symbols file to have 'arm64' and '!arm64' in the various
arch-qualified symbols entries (which I think I do understand). However
rcedirectory=/«BUILDDIR»/mozjs-1.8.5-1.0.0\+dfsg/js/src
dpkg-gensymbols: warning: some new symbols appeared in the symbols file: see
diff output below
dpkg-gensymbols: warning: some symbols or patterns disappeared in the symbols
file: see diff output below
dpkg-gensymbols: warning: debian/libmozjs185-1.0
Hi all,
I would like to ask one other question here.
Let say that I have two different working debian/symbols file;
one for i386 and one for amd64 architecture.
.symbols.i386
.symbols.amd64
Q1: How to care about other architectures which I am not able test?
Q2: Should I have in one other symbols
> Od: Paul Wise
PW> I looked at your symbols files and saw lots of lines starting with
PW> #MISSING:. This indicates that some symbols have dissappeared from
PW> your library at some stage in the history of that symbols file. That
PW> means that the ABI changed without a corresponding change in t
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 06:44:13PM +0200, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
>
> > I am not sure if I understand well your question.
> > I've change nothing consciously I create new symbols file ... there were no
> > one before my upgrade.
> > Maybe you can p
> Od: Paul Wise
JM> > Working debian symbols files are in attachments. (they are different in
the
JM> end of them)
PW> You have a lot of #MISSING: lines, did the ABI get broken without a
PW> SONAME change.
Hi,
I am not sure if I understand well your question.
I've cha
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
> I am not sure if I understand well your question.
> I've change nothing consciously I create new symbols file ... there were no
> one before my upgrade.
> Maybe you can point me somewhere to help me understand.
Please read libpkg-guide and
> Od: Paul Wise
JM> > Working debian symbols files are in attachments. (they are different in
the
JM> end of them)
PW> You have a lot of #MISSING: lines, did the ABI get broken without a
PW> SONAME change.
Hi,
I am not sure if I understand well your question.
I've cha
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 5:06 AM, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
> Working debian symbols files are in attachments. (they are different in the
> end of them)
You have a lot of #MISSING: lines, did the ABI get broken without a
SONAME change.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
> Od: Ryan Niebur
> see the dpkg-gensymbols manpage. it explains how to use different
> symbols files for different architectures.
I see it now
Thank you..
mira
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@l
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 05:06:54AM +0200, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am upgrading library package here and it seems that dpkg-gensymbols asking
> different debian/symbols file for my 32bit system and different for 64bit one.
> Working debian symbols files are in attachm
Hi all,
I am upgrading library package here and it seems that dpkg-gensymbols asking
different debian/symbols file for my 32bit system and different for 64bit one.
Working debian symbols files are in attachments. (they are different in the end
of them)
Can someone advise me how such issue
Hello Thorsten,
Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I need some advice on using the debian/symbols-file.
> The package libctl3 needs a symbols file, so I added something like:
>
> libctl.so.3 libtcl3 #MINVER#
^^^ ^^^
BTW, about last lintian complaint: 'li
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 07:13:59PM +0100, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
> libctl.so.3 libtcl3 #MINVER#
>scm_list_...@base
>scm_object_prope...@base
>(...)
>lintian -I -E libctl3_3.0.3-2_i386.deb
>E: libctl3: symbols-file-contains-current-version-with-debian-revision on
> symbol
Hi,
I need some advice on using the debian/symbols-file.
The package libctl3 needs a symbols file, so I added something like:
libctl.so.3 libtcl3 #MINVER#
scm_list_...@base
scm_object_prope...@base
(...)
to debian/libctl3.symbols.
I got these lines from the output of dpkg
and how to generate debian/symbols in order to satisfy the
> Lintian message.
>
> It also seems that debian/symbols is a relatively recent addition to
> packaging practices. How am I supposed to generate how should I use
> it? I've been reading the dpkg-gensymbols manpag
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 10:12:00AM -0600, Jordi Guti??rrez Hermoso wrote:
> it? I've been reading the dpkg-gensymbols manpage and chapter 8 in
> Policy, but I still don't understand how to generate the symbol list
http://qa.debian.org/cgi-bin/mole/seedsymbols has some autogenerated
symbols files
re:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2009/01/msg00241.html
Alright, I got around to fixing all of Lintian warnings and the other
issues that Rafael Laboissiere found. However, I still don't
understand how to generate debian/symbols in order to satisfy the
Lintian message.
It
20 matches
Mail list logo
