[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#753802: gns3: unable to install on wheezy-backports - missing backport of dynamips

On 07/07/14 19:33, Daniel Lintott wrote:
> On 07/07/14 19:11, Paul Gevers wrote:
>> On 05-07-14 12:28, Daniel Lintott wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> On 05/07/14 10:50, mdt wrote:
>>>> Package: gns3
>>>> Version: 0.7.4-1
>>>> Severity: wishlist
>>>> Dear Maintainer,
>>>> the current backport 0.8.6-3~bpo70+1 have a Depends on dynamips (>=0.2.8) but wheezy has 0.2.7-0.2.8RC2-5.1 and none backport are available.
>>>> Please backport dynamips 0.2.12-1.
>>>> Thanks.
>>> I was wondering how long it'd be before this was picked up on... I have
>>> backported Dynamips as well... but it hasn't been uploaded :(
>>> To the backport list:
>>> Would anyone be prepared to get this uploaded for me? This package can
>>> be found here: http://mentors.debian.net/package/dynamips
>> Is the Depends on dynamips really required, or just the result of an
>> unclean build? If the later, we could just rebuild cleanly. If the
>> former, IIAC the backport of gns3 should be removed until the dependency
>> tree is fixed. I have no interest in either of the packages, so I am not
>> going to upload dynamips, sorry, but I could build/upload gns3 for you
>> if that helps. I have not investigated myself yet, so you will have to
>> do that for me.
> The depends on Dynamips was bumped as features were introduced into
> dynamips since 0.2.8 that are used by GNS3... the depends is there for a
> good reason (and is hardcoded in the control as opposed to automatically
> filled, for this reason)
> CC'ing Aron (who uploaded the GNS3 backport for me) - would you be able
> to build and upload Dynamips?
> As a side note... I am the maintainer for both of these packages in
> Debian and work very closely with the upstream on development and
> bug-fixing as well as using them myself.
> Daniel

Pinging this yet again... there is clearly user interest in having the
backported GNS3 package, from the fact that the bug report was filed.

Despite this it seems nobody is interested in resolving this, which I
must say is a little disappointing.

I shall give this time once again and after that I fear I shall have to
give up on backports and have the package that is currently broken
removed from the archive.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: