Re: NMU round needed for libsigc++0c2 rdeps, on several archs
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 02:20:42AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Given the listing on <http://packages.debian.org/sid/libsigc++0c2>, it
> looks like affected archs are actually: amd64, arm, armel, m68k, s390.
FWIW, I don't have access to wanna-build for armel; you'll need to contact
the armel porters separately about binNMUs for that arch.
> I guess that the suggested binNMU-round should fix this:
> xgsmlib_0.2-7, 2, Rebuild against libsigc++, amd64 arm armel m68k s390
> shaketracker_0.4.6-5, 2, Rebuild against libsigc++, amd64
> shaketracker_0.4.6-5, 3, Rebuild against libsigc++, arm armel m68k s390
> libicq2000_0.3.2-7, 1, Rebuild against libsigc++, amd64 arm armel m68k s390
> ickle_0.3.2-7, 1, Rebuild against libsigc++, amd64 arm armel m68k s390
> gtkguitune_0.7-7, 2, Rebuild against libsigc++, amd64 arm armel m68k s390
> gabber_0.8.8-9.1, 2, Rebuild against libsigc++, amd64 arm armel m68k s390
Scheduled, thanks.
> gtkmm_1.2.10-8, 2, Rebuild against libsigc++, amd64 arm armel m68k s390
Superseded by a sourceful NMU.
> With a Dep-Wait on libsigc++-dev >> 1.0.4-9.1+b1 (or >= 1.0.4-9.2).
dep-wait not needed, libsigc++-dev is already current on all the relevant
archs.
> I hope I didn't screw up things too much, it's been a while since I
> didn't request binNMUs. Unsure about whether I should have put
> shaketracker's amd64 along with the other archs, skipping +b2.
Either way is fine; the way you've done it is consistent with how binNMUs
are usually numbered.
> I also didn't check deeper reverse dependencies, but that might be
> needed as well.
Presumably any such packages whose dependencies would change as a result of
this are buggy for not having an explicit build-dependency.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Reply to: