Hi, Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> (2021-02-08): > On Mon, 2021-02-08 at 02:25:01 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Source: libbsd0-udeb > > Version: 0.11.1-1 > > Severity: serious > > Justification: makes debian-installer FTBFS > > > The "new upstream" upload of libbsd builds a udeb that depends on a > > non-udeb: > > > > The following packages have unmet dependencies: > > libbsd0-udeb : Depends: libmd0 (>= 1.0.3) but it is not installable > > > > Please avoid linking against libmd0, or else add a libmd0-udeb > > package to libmd. Thanks for filing this bug report, Samuel. > I'd rather not revert the switch to use libmd… Assuming that means not linking against it isn't an option (at least for the udeb)… > but that requires the d-i team to approve (CCed) such package and > ftp-masters to approve such package. :/ … I have no objections on principle for a new udeb at this stage, even if it seems quite late in the release cycle. (We've traditionally had some more wiggle room on the d-i side, but that doesn't mean we should push too hard… ;)) > I could have the libmd udeb package uploaded today, though. Feel free to let us know about a source package/git repository so that we have a chance of experimenting with it before or while it's being reviewed/processed by ftp-masters. Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois (kibi@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/> D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature