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

Re: Bug#944189: Needs source-only re-upload to be able to migrate



Hi Steve,

(Spotted because I've been a subscriber of the haveged package since
some upload earlier this year…)

Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> (2019-11-05):
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 03:39:54PM +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >Source: haveged
> >Version: 1.9.8-1
> >Severity: important
> >Tags: d-i
> >
> >Current d-i daily builds are failing because of haveged, e.g. in
> >
> >  https://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/amd64/20191105-00:03/build_cdrom_gtk.log
> >
> >The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> > haveged-udeb : Depends: libhavege2 (>= 1.9.8) but it is not installable
> >E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.
> >make[2]: *** [Makefile:674: stamps/get_udebs-cdrom_gtk-stamp] Error 100
> >make[1]: *** [Makefile:298: _build] Error 2
> >make: *** [Makefile:292: build_cdrom_gtk] Error 2
> >
> >I'm going to do a no-change source-only upload to unjam this.
> 
> And here's the trivial NMU diff
> 
> diff -Nru haveged-1.9.8/debian/changelog haveged-1.9.8/debian/changelog
> --- haveged-1.9.8/debian/changelog	2019-10-16 20:13:07.000000000 +0100
> +++ haveged-1.9.8/debian/changelog	2019-11-05 15:45:28.000000000 +0000
> @@ -1,3 +1,12 @@
> +haveged (1.9.8-1+nmu1) unstable; urgency=high
> +
> +  * NMU
> +  * Source-only upload with no changes outside of the changelog to get
> +    testing migration working. This is currently blocking d-i daily
> +    builds. Closes: #944189
> +
> + -- Steve McIntyre <93sam@debian.org>  Tue, 05 Nov 2019 15:45:28 +0000
> +

As mentioned on IRC, rebuilding will likely not fix the actual problem,
which is the udeb depending on the library. That the migration is
prevented because of a missing source-only upload is another topic.


Cheers,
-- 
Cyril Brulebois (kibi@debian.org)            <https://debamax.com/>
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: