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

Bug#1024209: genparse: Fix ftbfs: Use "std=c++14" flag to build



close 1024209
tags 984149 + patch
user debian-riscv@lists.debian.org
usertags 1024209 - riscv64
thanks

On Wed, 2022-11-16 at 11:58 +0800, Yifan Xu wrote:

> To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
> Followup-For: Bug #984149

Please submit followups for existing bug reports to the existing bugs
instead of submitting new bug reports containing the followups.

I have forwarded your mail to bug #984149 just now:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=984149#16

> User: debian-riscv@lists.debian.org
> Usertags: riscv64
> X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-riscv@lists.debian.org

This bug isn't riscv64-specific so you should not add the riscv64
usertags and should not CC the debian-riscv mailing list.

> Dear Maintainer,

I note that this package is orphaned so it doesn't have a maintainer.

https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/genparse

I also note that the upstream of this package isn't very active:

https://sourceforge.net/p/genparse/

> This patch will make this package build with C++14 standard, as this package 
> doesn`t install any header files in /usr/include, so this patch should be OK.

When submitting patches to the BTS, it is a good idea to mark the bug
as having a patch using the patch tag. Add this to the pseudo-headers:

Control: tags -1 + patch

https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting#control
https://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control#tag
https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#tags

The patch to debian/rules seems like it should have been made to the
upstream build system so both patches could be sent upstream instead.

In addition both patches are workarounds not proper fixes, since they
switch the package to an older version of C++ instead of fixing it to
work with the current version of C++.

Since this package is orphaned in Debian, unmaintained upstream,
nothing in Debian seems to depend on it and fails to build with current
versions of its build dependencies, perhaps it should be just removed
from Debian instead of fixing it? If you agree, please file a removal:

https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#removing-packages

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: