On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 10:16:32AM +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote: > Ben Burton <benb@acm.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > > Hi.. out of curiosity, does anyone know what's keeping the new libusb out of > > testing? I can't find anything useful in update_excuses.html and I can't > > make sense of the lines in update_output.txt. > > The (obvious) problems were : > - sane-backends/sane-frontends RC bugs > - gphoto2 not building on arm > - kdegraphics not building on arm > > The hidden problems were : > - pencam depending on libusb0 on m68k and sparc (bad build-deps) > - libgpio depending on libusb0 on sparc (bad build-deps) I don't know if the new packages of pencam and libgpio have been uploaded but I would guess that it is not the case. And I would guess that the libusb story is not yet over. It is currently not possible to compile a working gphoto2 in unstable without previously recompiling libusb. Otherwise it segfault early because usb_busses (from libusb.so) is not understood by gphoto2. I believe it is a mismatch between libusb and gphoto2 libc or the gcc used. As I understand it ALL libusb-depend packages are concerned. If I am correct we need a recompiled libusb and to recompile all related packages. Sorry for the bad news, Christophe > > [...] > > > Just wondering what remains to be done to let libusb 1:0.1.5-3 in. > > Nothing. Just wait. Binary NMUs for pencam and libgpio are in > incoming, dinstall will pick them up in a couple of hours. > > After this, we should be done with this problem. > > JB. > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org > -- Christophe Barbé <christophe.barbe@ufies.org> GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E A qui sait comprendre, peu de mots suffisent. (Intelligenti pauca.)
Attachment:
pgpvIEjdS8cYi.pgp
Description: PGP signature