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 Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain steven@pyro.eu.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature