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

Bug#985154: gegl: autopkgtest regression: Package 'gegl-0.4' requires 'babl >= 0.1.84' but version of babl is 0.1.82



Source: gegl
Version: 1:0.4.28-1
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-ci@lists.debian.org
Severity: serious
User: debian-ci@lists.debian.org
Usertags: regression

Dear maintainer(s),

With a recent upload of gegl the autopkgtest of gegl fails in testing
when that autopkgtest is run with the binary packages of gegl from
unstable. It passes when run with only packages from testing. In tabular
form:

                       pass            fail
gegl                   from testing    1:0.4.28-1
all others             from testing    from testing

I copied some of the output at the bottom of this report. Reading the
changelog, I noticed that the Build-Depends on babl was bumped
appropriately, but it seems that *versioned* dependency is missing in
other places. This missing is also causing regressions in other reverse
dependencies [1]. Can you please investigate the situation and fix it?

More information about this bug and the reason for filing it can be found on
https://wiki.debian.org/ContinuousIntegration/RegressionEmailInformation

Paul

[1] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=gegl

https://ci.debian.net/data/autopkgtest/testing/amd64/g/gegl/11037943/log.gz

autopkgtest [03:10:42]: test libgegl-dev: [-----------------------
+ mktemp -d
+ WORKDIR=/tmp/tmp.SF6Nw0UrQI
+ export XDG_RUNTIME_DIR=/tmp/tmp.SF6Nw0UrQI
+ trap rm -rf "$WORKDIR" 0 INT QUIT ABRT PIPE TERM
+ cd /tmp/tmp.SF6Nw0UrQI
+ [ -n  ]
+ CROSS_COMPILE=
+ cat
+ pkg-config --cflags --libs gegl-0.4
Package 'gegl-0.4' requires 'babl >= 0.1.84' but version of babl is 0.1.82
+ gcc -o gegl-0.4-test gegl-0.4.c
gegl-0.4.c:1:10: fatal error: gegl.h: No such file or directory
    1 | #include <gegl.h>
      |          ^~~~~~~~
compilation terminated.
+ rm -rf /tmp/tmp.SF6Nw0UrQI
autopkgtest [03:10:43]: test libgegl-dev: -----------------------]

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: