On Mon, 2014-07-28 at 23:48 -0700, Vincent Cheng wrote: > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Alexander Wirt <formorer@formorer.de> wrote: > > On Mon, 28 Jul 2014, Vincent Cheng wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Alexander Wirt <formorer@formorer.de> wrote: > >> > On Mon, 28 Jul 2014, Vincent Cheng wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 2:14 AM, Andrei POPESCU > >> >> <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > Bugs against packages in backports have to be reported to the -backports > >> >> > list, so I'm closing this bug (it was assigned against an "inexistent" > >> >> > package anyway), but CCing -backports. > >> >> > > >> >> > Kind regards, > >> >> > Andrei -- looking after bugs filed against unknown packages. > >> >> > > >> >> > On Sb, 19 iul 14, 10:56:02, Jason Fergus wrote: > >> >> >> Source: openchangeserver > >> >> >> Version: 1:2.1-1~bpo70+1 > >> >> >> Severity: grave > >> >> >> Justification: renders package unusable > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Dear Maintainer, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> *** Reporter, please consider answering these questions, where appropriate *** > >> >> >> > >> >> >> * What led up to the situation? > >> >> >> I attempted to install the package on a Debian Wheezy system with Wheezy- > >> >> >> Backports enabled. It said that the libc6 library is not new enough. I see > >> >> >> other architectures depend upon 2.13, but not amd64, not sure why this is, but > >> >> >> I'd think at this point the majority of people are running on amd64, which > >> >> >> makes this package useless for those sticking with Stable+backports. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> * What exactly did you do (or not do) that was effective (or > >> >> >> ineffective)? > >> >> >> sudo apt-get install -t wheezy-backports openchangeserver > >> >> >> > >> >> >> * What was the outcome of this action? > >> >> >> The following packages have unmet dependencies: > >> >> >> openchangeserver : Depends: libc6 (>= 2.14) but 2.13-38+deb7u3 is to be > >> >> >> installed > >> >> >> E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> * What outcome did you expect instead? > >> >> >> installed package. > >> >> > >> >> I've filed #756355 to fix this with a binNMU. Thanks for the bug report Jason! > >> > Oh guys come on. What is so hard in testing a backport before uploading? This > >> > isn't funny anymore. > >> > >> It's more likely than not just a honest mistake from whoever built and > >> uploaded this package. This, and many other problems, wouldn't be an > >> issue if only we allowed source-only uploads (and throwaway binaries, > >> I guess)... > > That doesn't change anything. A sponsor should test the package. If he hasn't > > tested the build package on stable, he hasn't done its job. > > This issue has nothing to do with sponsors at all (the signature on > the openchange backport suggests that Jelmer uploaded the package > himself, and he's the current maintainer for openchange). > > Regards, > Vincent Yeah, it seemed to me that it was just built in a newer environment. The current packages in Jessie+ of course would work perfectly fine against 2.14 libc.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part