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

Re: RFS: kildclient (updated packages, fixes FTBS)

On 05/13/2011 10:56 PM, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
> On 05/13/2011 01:31 PM, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
>> On 05/08/2011 08:42 PM, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
>>> The package is lintian clean, and builds in pbuilder.
>> Actually, It's not:
>> W: kildclient source: format-3.0-but-debian-changes-patch
>> debian/patches/debian-changes-2.11.0-1 contains the changes from overwriting
>> configu.guess. You can use the the scripts from autotools-dev to perform this
>> task for you. Have a look at dh_autotools-dev_updateconfig(1) and
>> dh_autotools-dev_restoreconfig(1).
> That's strange, I could not get this warning with lintian 2.5.0 (just
> installed from unstable). And I see no patches for config.{sub,guess} in
> the kildclient_2.11.0-1.debian.tar.gz file, it only includes the normal
> files in debian/
> But I'll take a look at the mentioned tools nevertheless.

I forgot to mention that I get the diff after the first build. So maybe your
/usr/share/misc/config.sub matches the one shipped with kildclient and mine
doesn't. Mine is from autotools-dev 20110511.1 where as kildclient's seems to
match that one from autotools-dev 20100122.1. So it's worth to be fixed anyway
as you'll get a diff with any newer autotools-dev.

> Anyway, if some DD is thinking about uploading this package, please
> wait. I've submitted a quick fix for the FTBS bug 555000 to Dominic
> Hargreaves as per his offer in that bug report, so I'll prepare a new
> version soon.
>> And concerning the dpkg-shlibdeps warnings you could consider linking with
>> -Wl,--as-needed.
> Is that the recommended way, or should I keep hoping that one day the
> pkg-config files for gtk+ will not list so many libraries as
> dependencies (that aren't really dependencies)?

I don't know if that's the recommended way but that's what I am using in zathura
to get rid of those warnings.

Kind regards,
Sebastian Ramacher

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: