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

Bug#679778: marked as done (unblock: spandsp/0.0.6~pre20-2)



Your message dated Thu, 26 Jul 2012 20:13:16 +0100
with message-id <1343329996.9025.7.camel@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#679778: unblock: spandsp/0.0.6~pre20-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #679778,
regarding unblock: spandsp/0.0.6~pre20-2
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.)


-- 
679778: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=679778
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: unblock

Please unblock package spandsp

See http://bugs.debian.org/679736 . The test suite may fail when building
in parallel. This patch avoids building the test suite in parallel.

unblock spandsp/0.0.6~pre20-2

-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=he_IL.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=he_IL.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash



--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 08:45 +0000, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 08:31:48PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > Hmmm.  I'm prepared to go with the change in pre19 being suitable, and
> > give the benefit of the doubt to the pre20 changes and hope they don't
> > turn out to be a pain.  There are a couple of packaging changes that
> > don't appear to be mentioned in the changelog though:
> > 
> > debian/control:
> > -Conflicts: asterisk-app-dtmftotext (<= 0.0.20060218-4)
> 
> That package is long gone (since Etch). It also depended on libspandsp1
> which is gone (assuming you don't use m68k). So there's no longer a need
> for the explicit Conflicts.

Okay.

> > debian/rules:
> >  %:
> > -       dh $@ --with-autotools-dev --parallel
> > +       dh $@ --parallel
> 
> I guess it should have been '--with autotools-dev'. But as-is it seems a
> no-op. So I preffered to just remove it rather than change packaging
> further.

It should indeed have been "--with autotools-dev".  Normally I'd have
suggested fixing it but, given that it's never worked, the explicit drop
works okay too.

It would have been handy if both of those had been changelogged
though. :-)

Unblocked; thanks.

Regards,

Adam

--- End Message ---

Reply to: