how to deal with "not yet built" / "missing binaries" on autobuilders, requesting transition needed?
Hi,
3 weeks ago I've uploaded package ticcutils 0.4-3 to unstable.
It got accepted for unstable. However, I believe I've made a
mistake and didn't request the release team for some measures to
be taken. The buildd's are stuck:
"trying to update ticcutils from 0.3-1 to 0.4-3 (candidate is 20 days old)
ticcutils is not yet built on i386: 0.3-1 vs 0.4-3 (missing 2 binaries: libticcutils1, libticcutils1-dev)
ticcutils is not yet built on amd64: 0.3-1 vs 0.4-3 (missing 2 binaries: libticcutils1, libticcutils1-dev)
[...]"
(see http://release.debian.org/migration/testing.pl?package=ticcutils)
ticcutils 0.3-1 builds binary packages libticcutils1 and
libticcutils1-dev
ticcutils 0.4-3 builds binary packages libticcutils2 and
libticcutils2-dev
(Reverse dependencies of those are all maintained/sponsored by me.)
I believe I should now:
1) Prepare a better ticcutils 0.4-4 package, which builds libticcutils2
and unversioned libticcutils-dev (which Conflicts: libticcutils1-dev,
libticcutils2-dev and Replaces: libticcutils1-dev, libticcutils2-dev).
2) Submit a bug to release.debian.org, requesting "transition tracking"
(as per http://release.debian.org/transitions/), apologising for previous
mistake and requesting an ACK for uploading ticcutils 0.4-4.
3) Once ACK'd, upload and keep an eye on autobuilders
Correct?
Please honor mail-followup-to and Cc me on replies.
Thanks, Bye,
Joost
PS / Note to self: ucto 0.5.3-3, timblserver 1.7-3, mbt 3.2.10-3 (this
morning) and other stuff in http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html
--
Worrying is like paying interest on a debt you may never have owed.
--Charlie Papazian about Home Brewing, 1991, quoted by
http://mdcc.cx/ Sandor "Wild Fermentation" Elix Katz
Joost van Baal-Ilić ※ http://ad1810.com/ ※ Eindhoven, .nl
Reply to: