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

Re: mass bug filing about versioned dependency on the libhdf5-7 virtual package

>>>>> Julien Cristau <julien.cristau@logilab.fr> writes:
>>>>> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 00:28:15 +0700, Ivan Shmakov wrote:

 >> I tend to think that a re-build (via binNMU or otherwise) will be
 >> sufficient for most of the packages affected.

 >> Unless there'll be objections, I'm going to file the respective bug
 >> reports regarding the versioned dependency on libhdf5-7 against the
 >> following packages.  (The affected versions and architectures
 >> [though only amd64 and i386 were tested] are shown, as well as the
 >> Depends: list items triggering the check.)

 > NAK.  If a binNMU is all that's needed then please don't file bugs
 > against the packages.  See http://wiki.debian.org/binNMU

	ACK, thanks for the pointer!

	The problem is that I'm yet unsure whether a binNMU will be
	sufficient or not.  My analysis is below, and unless there'd be
	objections, I'd be filing a bug against release.debian.org, with
	the binNMU entries as follows.

  nmu libcgns_3.1.3.4-1 . ALL . -m 'Rebuilt against libhdf5-7 >= 1.8.8-7.1' 
  nmu nexus_4.2.1-svn1614-1 . ALL . -m 'Rebuilt against libhdf5-7 >= 1.8.8-7.1' 
  nmu r-cran-hdf5_1.6.10-1 . ALL . -m 'Rebuilt against libhdf5-7 >= 1.8.8-7.1' 
  nmu tessa_0.3.1-6 . ALL . -m 'Rebuilt against libhdf5-7 >= 1.8.8-7.1' 
  nmu udav_0.7.1.2-3 . ALL . -m 'Rebuilt against libhdf5-7 >= 1.8.8-7.1' 

	AIUI, the packages affected are exactly those built against
	pre-1.8.8-7.1 versions of the Source: hdf5 libraries.  That may
	explain the versioned dependency, and may be a good indication
	for that a binNMU will be sufficient to get the issue fixed.

--cut: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/h/hdf5/hdf5_1.8.8-9/changelog --
hdf5 (1.8.8-7.1) unstable; urgency=low

  * Non-maintainer upload.
  * Stop building the c++ libraries, nothing uses them.  And don't version the
    libhdf5-7 symbols file, so the dependency can also be satisfied by the mpi
    packages' Provides.
  * Use DEB_HOST_ARCH instead of DEB_BUILD_ARCH in debian/rules.
  * Don't require root for debian/rules clean.

 -- Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>  Sat, 18 Feb 2012 12:25:35 +0000
--cut: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/h/hdf5/hdf5_1.8.8-9/changelog --

	As per http://packages.qa.debian.org/, all the packages I've
	listed before entered unstable prior to 2012-02-18 (except for
	Source: tessa, which was uploaded a couple of days after.)

    • [2012-01-24] Accepted in unstable (low) (Sylvestre

    • [2011-07-31] Accepted 4.2.1-svn1614-1 in unstable (low) (Tobias
      Stefan Richter)

	NB: apparently, nexus was re-built once as 4.2.1-svn1614-1+b1 on
	2012-01-26 (before hdf5_1.8.8-7.1, and still bearing a possibly
	unwarranted versioned dependency on libhdf5-7.)

    • [2012-01-18] Accepted 1.6.10-1 in unstable (low) (Dirk

    • [2012-02-20] Accepted 0.3.1-6 in unstable (low) (Josselin Mouette)

    • [2012-01-25] Accepted in unstable (low) (Salvatore


FSF associate member #7257

Reply to: