Re: unblock(-udeb)s for d-i wheezy rc1, round 1
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 09:37:11PM +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 22:25 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:34:13AM +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 06:26:06AM +0000, Adam Barratt wrote:
> > > > partman-nbd/armhf unsatisfiable Depends: nbd-client-udeb
> > > > partman-nbd/s390x unsatisfiable Depends: nbd-client-udeb
> [...]
> > > Hmmm. That's surprising (to me). Ah, looking at the nbd package I can
> > > see that the udeb is not "Architecture: any" or even "Architecture:
> > > linux-any" like I'd expect. That's why. Wouter, could you fix that or
> > > at least add armhf and s390x please?
> [...]
> > Fix uploaded. It also contains a tightening of the build-dependencies to
> > what's effectively already there (but not specified as such in the
> > changelog), but (other than the Architecture: linux-any) no functional
> > changes.
>
> Unblocked, but needs an explicit ack for the udeb hint.
Thanks.
> There's also this oddity, fwiw:
>
> + nbd (1:3.2-1) unstable; urgency=low
> +
> + * New upstream release. Includes many stability fixes, so hopefully
Ah, whoops. That's because the NMU patch didn't apply cleanly (for
obvious reasons; I'd already added the -2 changelog when I added the NMU
patch), so I just added the hunk to the changelog and removed the
leading + signs. Apparently I missed the context at the end.
I've fixed it in my local copy, but I'm not sure it's important enough
to warrant a new upload. Can you think of anything that would break?
--
Copyshops should do vouchers. So that next time some bureaucracy requires you
to mail a form in triplicate, you can mail it just once, add a voucher, and
save on postage.
Reply to: