Re: 2.1r3 -- no announce?
Adam Di Carlo <email@example.com> writes:
> Philip Hands <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Nobody's got back to me about fixing the broken dependencies for the
> > non-i386 architectures. I've done the source CDs though.
> I never heard of this...
I mailed each message to debian-devel and debian-<architecture>
> > A quick look at the things that have changed in the archive since I
> > did the i386 images reveals that the packages don't seem to have been
> > fixed for the other architectures.
> Uh, no, I think nothing was moved in unless it was also compiled for
> all other architectures....
Yeah, but evidently they were compiled on machines with some potato
packages, which leaves them with hanging dependencies once moved into
> > There's a problem with trn depending on new (potato) versions of
> > ncurses, and something similar with sendmail depending on libc6.1 (>=
> > 2.1) IIRC.
> Huh? Why was that relevant for the 2.1r3 update? Were lib6.1
> depedning packages put in stable?
No. That's the problem. Look:
open:~$ cd /home/ftp/debian/dists/slink/main/binary-alpha
open:.../binary-alpha$ dpkg --info mail/sendmail_8.9.3-3.deb | grep Depends:
Depends: libc6.1 (>= 2.1), libdb2 (>= 2.3.16), netbase (>= 1.26-1), m4, procmail | deliver
open:.../binary-alpha$ ls base/libc6.1*