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

Bug#769190: Bug#757941: Bug#769190: busybox-static: DNS resolver is broken again with the last upload

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 10:53:51AM +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> 12.11.2014 04:27, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> > Package: busybox-static
> > Version: 1:1.22.0-11
> > Severity: important
> > 
> > This is basically the same error as with bug #757941, but it was
> > reassigned to glibc and fixed there. As Aurelien Jarno correctly stated
> > in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=757941#120
> > it was indeed fixed with version 1.22.0-9+b1, which I have verified.
> > 
> > However, I just received version 1.22.0-11 of busybox-static and now it
> > fails again:
> Now this is funny.  Should I add a versioned build-dependency against
> libc6-dev perhaps?
> Because, according to the build log of amd64 (that's your arch), the
> package has been built against glibc (= 2.19-11) -- grep for Built-Using
> in the build log:
>  https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=busybox&arch=amd64&ver=1%3A1.22.0-11&stamp=1415729242
> now I wonder how the -9+b1 version has been built against fixed
> glibc-2.19-12 while at least one of amd64 buildds have -11 ?

I scheduled the previous binNMUs using --extra-depends, thus forcing the
libc version.

A quick analysis shows that hurd-i386, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386,
mips and ppc64el built busybox against a fixed glibc version, and that
amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mipsel, powerpc, s390x and sparc
built it against a broken version.

At least the built-using field is great to find which packages are

> And there's nothing I can do about this on busybox side -- except,
> again, adding a versioned build-dep.

I'll schedule binNMUs for now, but it might be a good idea to add a
versioned build-dep so that it doesn't happen again.


Aurelien Jarno                          GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurelien@aurel32.net                 http://www.aurel32.net

Reply to: