Re: Where did Bacula 1.38.11-7+b1 come from?
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 07:26:35PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Hello,
> A binNMU does not show up in the pts, since there are no source
> changes.
Hmm, I wonder if it would be possible for it to show up? Since there
are .changes files with binNMUs, and presumably also migration to
testing statuses?
> > Does anybody know what is going on here?
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2007/02/msg00647.html
That seems to explain it (I think). Though I am still confused about
why a binNMU is being used even though it is being rebuilt across all
archs.
> The bug is that a binNMU for bacula was scheduled although it is not
> binNMU-able. Usually checking is done whether the package would break
> before triggereing the rebuilt. Looks like this was missed this time.
OK, that makes sense. No worries then.
> If your next sourceful upload would fix this it would make the
> release-team's work easier. The fix is simple:
I will upload in about 1 hour.
> 1. Add a Build-dependency on dpkg-dev (>=1.13.19)
> 2. For all in bacula-foo packages that are arch:all replace any
> occurence of
> Depends: bacula-foo (= ${Source-Version})
> with Depends: bacula-foo (= ${source:Version})
> 3. (optional, but clarify things) For all in bacula-foo packages that
> are arch:any replace any
> occurence of
> Depends: bacula-foo (= ${Binary-Version})
>
> Untested (For testing just set the version number to 1.38.11-7+b1 in
> debian/changelog and rebuild with dpkg-buildpackage -b), I'll not have
> time for a tested patch today or tomorrow but I can probably come up
> with one on the weekend if you have not had time to resolve this then.
Do I need to update the MySQL build-deps though? It sounds like I
should, from reading the message you linked to, but I'm not certain
about that.
-- John
Reply to: