Bug#778103: reconserver: ftbfs with GCC-5

[peter green]

On 11/08/15 17:41, Antti Järvinen wrote:
> Please find attached patch to reconserver.
>    
Some comments on the patch (note: I am NOT the maintainer of this 
package, nor do I intend to NMU it, I will leave uploading to someone 
who is in a position to test the resulting package).

> -Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 9.0.0), autotools-dev, dpkg-dev (>= 
> 1.16.1~), librecon-1.9-dev (>= 1.9.6), libsipxtapi-dev (>= 3.3.0~test17)
> +Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 9.0.0), autotools-dev, dpkg-dev (>= 
> 1.16.1~), librecon-1.9-dev (>= 1.9.6) | librecon-1.10-dev (>= 1.10.0), 
> libsipxtapi-dev (>= 3.3.0~test17)
Debian autobuilders only look at the first alternative for a 
build-dependency. So if you are going to use alternative 
build-dependencies the package that is in the archive MUST be first in 
the list.

> -Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}, adduser, librecon-1.9 
> (>= 1.9.6), libsipxtapi (>= 3.3.0~test17)
> +Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}, adduser, librecon-1.9 
> (>= 1.9.6) | librecon-1.10, libsipxtapi (>= 3.3.0~test17)
This looks plain wrong, in general a binary needs the version of a 
library that it was complied against, not some arbitary version. 
Normally this dependency is provided through the shlibs mechanism, if 
that isn't adequate then there may be a need to investigate why and do 
something locally.

> +Description: Fixes needed for compiling with gcc5.2 and above
> + This gets rid of auto_ptr, replacing them with unique_ptr. Also
> + compiler flag for c++ standard to use needs to be added to debian/rules
> + e.g. addition of  -std=c++11 into CXXFLAGS.
> + .
> + reconserver (0.10.3-1) unstable; urgency=medium
> + .
> +   * New upstream release.
> +   * Adds Opus codec support.
> +Author: Daniel Pocock <daniel at pocock.pro>
> +
> +---
> +The information above should follow the Patch Tagging Guidelines, please
> +checkout http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/ to learn about the format. Here
> +are templates for supplementary fields that you might want to add:
> +
> +Origin: other
> +Bug:
> +Bug-Debian: https://bugs.debian.org/778103
> +Bug-Ubuntu:
> +Forwarded: no
> +Reviewed-By: <name and email of someone who approved the patch>
> +Last-Update: <2015-08-11>
This patch header needs cleaning up. The information extracted from the 
changelog is clearly not relavent to this patch and should have been 
removed. I also presume Daniel Pocock was not really the author (as if 
he was he would presumablly have committed to the VCS and made an upload).

Antti, can you confirm who wrote this patch? was it you?