Please merge bbkeys 0.9.0-7 (universe) from Debian unstable (main)

[Kjell Braden]

Binary package hint: bbkeys

Please merge bbkeys 0.9.0-7 from Debian unstable. The interim Debian changelog is as follows:

bbkeys (0.9.0-7) unstable; urgency=low

  * Repaired the FTBFS with GCC 4.3. (closes: #417111)
  * Fixed the use of the non existent style file by default.
    (closes: #401557)

 -- Bruno Barrera C. <email address hidden> Sat, 17 Nov 2007 16:21:16 -0300

[Kjell Braden (afflux)]

re-uploading, the first upload was broken.

[Sebastien Bacher (seb128)]

this change should go to debian that's not an useful delta to maintain on ubuntu

[Kjell Braden (afflux)]

On Mi, 2007-12-12 at 14:57 +0000, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> this change should go to debian that's not an useful delta to maintain
> on ubuntu
>

I'm not sure whether this change should go to debian as they have
libxext-dev via libx11-dev (which they have via libxft-dev, which they
have via libbt-dev, which is a B-D of bbkeys). Ubuntu's libx11-dev
somehow doesn't depend on libxext-dev, so we don't have that at
build-time.

What's to do here?

[Steve Langasek (vorlon)]

On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 05:14:28PM -0000, Kjell Braden wrote:

> I'm not sure whether this change should go to debian

Yes, it should. The bbkeys source package references libxext-dev directly,
which means it should be declared as a build-dependency (or the reference to
-lXext removed), whether or not libxext-dev is already being pulled in some
other way.

It's not a FTBFS bug in Debian today, but it's still a bug.

[Kjell Braden (afflux)]

On Do, 2007-12-13 at 19:55 +0000, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 05:14:28PM -0000, Kjell Braden wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure whether this change should go to debian
>
> Yes, it should. The bbkeys source package references libxext-dev directly,
> which means it should be declared as a build-dependency (or the reference to
> -lXext removed), whether or not libxext-dev is already being pulled in some
> other way.
>
> It's not a FTBFS bug in Debian today, but it's still a bug.
>

 status invalid

Ah, I see. I just checked and saw debian bug #455224
(http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=455224) which reports
exactly that. I'll close this bug and mark the package in dad.

Thanks,