FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 10-01-2012, 08:45 AM
Julien Cristau
 
Default mass bug filing about versioned dependency on the libhdf5-7 virtual package

On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 00:28:15 +0700, Ivan Shmakov wrote:

> I tend to think that a re-build (via binNMU or otherwise) will
> be sufficient for most of the packages affected.
>
> Unless there'll be objections, I'm going to file the respective
> bug reports regarding the versioned dependency on libhdf5-7
> against the following packages. (The affected versions and
> architectures [though only amd64 and i386 were tested] are
> shown, as well as the Depends: list items triggering the check.)
>
NAK. If a binNMU is all that's needed then please don't file bugs
against the packages. See http://wiki.debian.org/binNMU

Cheers,
Julien
--
Julien Cristau <julien.cristau@logilab.fr>
Logilab http://www.logilab.fr/
Informatique scientifique & gestion de connaissances


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20121001084527.GB310@crater2.logilab.fr">http://lists.debian.org/20121001084527.GB310@crater2.logilab.fr
 
Old 10-03-2012, 05:14 AM
Ivan Shmakov
 
Default mass bug filing about versioned dependency on the libhdf5-7 virtual package

>>>>> Julien Cristau <julien.cristau@logilab.fr> writes:
>>>>> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 00:28:15 +0700, Ivan Shmakov wrote:

>> I tend to think that a re-build (via binNMU or otherwise) will be
>> sufficient for most of the packages affected.

>> Unless there'll be objections, I'm going to file the respective bug
>> reports regarding the versioned dependency on libhdf5-7 against the
>> following packages. (The affected versions and architectures
>> [though only amd64 and i386 were tested] are shown, as well as the
>> Depends: list items triggering the check.)

> NAK. If a binNMU is all that's needed then please don't file bugs
> against the packages. See http://wiki.debian.org/binNMU

ACK, thanks for the pointer!

The problem is that I'm yet unsure whether a binNMU will be
sufficient or not. My analysis is below, and unless there'd be
objections, I'd be filing a bug against release.debian.org, with
the binNMU entries as follows.

nmu libcgns_3.1.3.4-1 . ALL . -m 'Rebuilt against libhdf5-7 >= 1.8.8-7.1'
nmu nexus_4.2.1-svn1614-1 . ALL . -m 'Rebuilt against libhdf5-7 >= 1.8.8-7.1'
nmu r-cran-hdf5_1.6.10-1 . ALL . -m 'Rebuilt against libhdf5-7 >= 1.8.8-7.1'
nmu tessa_0.3.1-6 . ALL . -m 'Rebuilt against libhdf5-7 >= 1.8.8-7.1'
nmu udav_0.7.1.2-3 . ALL . -m 'Rebuilt against libhdf5-7 >= 1.8.8-7.1'

AIUI, the packages affected are exactly those built against
pre-1.8.8-7.1 versions of the Source: hdf5 libraries. That may
explain the versioned dependency, and may be a good indication
for that a binNMU will be sufficient to get the issue fixed.

--cut: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/h/hdf5/hdf5_1.8.8-9/changelog --
hdf5 (1.8.8-7.1) unstable; urgency=low

* Non-maintainer upload.
* Stop building the c++ libraries, nothing uses them. And don't version the
libhdf5-7 symbols file, so the dependency can also be satisfied by the mpi
packages' Provides.
* Use DEB_HOST_ARCH instead of DEB_BUILD_ARCH in debian/rules.
* Don't require root for debian/rules clean.

-- Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org> Sat, 18 Feb 2012 12:25:35 +0000
--cut: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/h/hdf5/hdf5_1.8.8-9/changelog --

As per http://packages.qa.debian.org/, all the packages I've
listed before entered unstable prior to 2012-02-18 (except for
Source: tessa, which was uploaded a couple of days after.)

http://packages.qa.debian.org/libc/libcgns.html
• [2012-01-24] Accepted 3.1.3.4-1 in unstable (low) (Sylvestre
Ledru)

http://packages.qa.debian.org/n/nexus.html
• [2011-07-31] Accepted 4.2.1-svn1614-1 in unstable (low) (Tobias
Stefan Richter)

NB: apparently, nexus was re-built once as 4.2.1-svn1614-1+b1 on
2012-01-26 (before hdf5_1.8.8-7.1, and still bearing a possibly
unwarranted versioned dependency on libhdf5-7.)

http://packages.qa.debian.org/r/r-cran-hdf5.html
• [2012-01-18] Accepted 1.6.10-1 in unstable (low) (Dirk
Eddelbuettel)

http://packages.qa.debian.org/t/tessa.html
• [2012-02-20] Accepted 0.3.1-6 in unstable (low) (Josselin Mouette)

http://packages.qa.debian.org/u/udav.html
• [2012-01-25] Accepted 0.7.1.2-3 in unstable (low) (Salvatore
Bonaccorso)

TIA.

--
FSF associate member #7257


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 86fw5wp27b.fsf@gray.siamics.net">http://lists.debian.org/86fw5wp27b.fsf@gray.siamics.net
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:08 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org