[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Collaboration from ubuntuBSD project

Jon Boden wrote:
> Yes, definitely. I was planning to review the patches one by one,
> then for each change send a bug report to all the affected parties
> (some cases include Debian, some don't) with complete explanation of
> the changes, their rationale, etc.
> However there are 77 of them so be patient ;-)

I had a skim through.  I'd say in 80% of cases, the package is fine in
Debian and it was *buntu that broke it (such as removing the [linux-any]
tags from Build-Depends, or the "any-" prefixes in Architecture lists).

These FTBFS are already fixed in Debian sid:

  * gpac
  * grantlee
  * ilmbase
  * java-common
  * libgtop2
  * lirc
  * libburn
  * libjpeg-turbo
  * mesa

These patches are probably not needed in Debian sid:

  * qca2
  * samba
  * subversion
  * tupi

For this one we have a better patch already in
https://bugs.debian.org/810982 :

  * net-snmp

And these were all *buntu-specific (e.g. Mir) :

  * libcolumbus
  * lightdm
  * gtk+3.0
  * xorg-server

Steven Chamberlain

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: