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

Bug#597119: marked as done (unblock: libffado/2.0.1+svn1856-5)

Your message dated Sun, 17 Oct 2010 11:40:52 +0100
with message-id <[🔎] 12aa0567e2efbd41d34dfe4e122b527e.squirrel@adsl.funkybadger.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#597119: Proposed new ffado package
has caused the Debian Bug report #597119,
regarding unblock: libffado/2.0.1+svn1856-5
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
597119: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=597119
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: freeze-exception

Please unblock package libffado

>From the changelog:

  * Compile with -fPIC.
  * Refactor common python code into ffado-python-support
    (Closes: #594568) (LP: #524702 #624514)

The bug has severity important, I've hence refactored the files in question
into its own package. There are no dependencies other than these ffado-internal
onces, so if the package in the NEW queue is correct, it shouldn't do any harm
to non-ffado packages.



The -fPIC issue is also worth fixing. At least it's a lintian error, and we
clearly don't want non-relocatable code in shared libraries.

As you can see from the diff (<http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-
multimedia/ffado.git>), all changes are strictly limited to its very purpose.

I hence ask to let this package to transition to Squeeze.



unblock libffado/2.0.1+svn1856-2

-- System Information:
Debian Release: squeeze/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.34.1 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Sat, October 16, 2010 23:41, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 08:11:41PM +0200, Adrian Knoth wrote:
>>----- Forwarded message from "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
>> -----
[...]
>>I assume the cdbs build-dependency bump is related to the changes in
>>debian/rules?  Specifically these:
>>
>>-include /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/buildcore.mk
>>
>>-DEB_BUILD_ARCH ?= $(shell dpkg-architecture -qDEB_BUILD_ARCH)
>
> No, above is just superfluous duplicate code.
>
> The bump was due to inclusion of utils.mk used for invoking dh-buildinfo
> instead of the previous explicit rule.
>
> I now relaxed the inclusion of utils.mk so that dh-buildinfo simply is
> silently skipped when using a too old cdbs version.

Thanks; I've unblocked -5.

Regards,

Adam

--- End Message ---
Reply to: