Re: Proposed mass bug filing: Removal of automake1.4, automake1.9, automake1.10 and automake1.11
Sorry about that. Generally how I transition to a new upstream version
is to update the automake package and then upload a new automake1.X
package after that. So I will be uploading an automake1.11 package
shortly to fix this.
* Thorsten Glaser (tg@debian.org) wrote:
> Eric Dorland <eric <at> debian.org> writes:
>
> > at the very beginning of the jessie release cycle I'd like to propose
> > a mass bug filing to remove all the current automake packages in
> > unstable (automake1.13 is in the NEW queue). Automake 1.4 in
>
> Erm. How about you’d have checked with the maintainers of those
> packages *before* shoving automake1.13 as “automake” into NEW,
> thus breaking the build of unrelated packages?
>
> http://buildd.debian-ports.org/status/
> fetch.php?pkg=libnfsidmap&arch=m68k&ver=0.25-5&stamp=1369888632
>
> Manual analysis:
>
> (pbuild7107)aranym:/# apt-get install automake1.11
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree
> Reading state information... Done
> Package automake1.11 is a virtual package provided by:
> automake 1:1.11.6-1 [Not candidate version]
>
> E: Package 'automake1.11' has no installation candidate
> (pbuild7107)aranym:/# apt-cache policy automake
> automake:
> Installed: (none)
> Candidate: 1:1.13.2-1
> Version table:
> 1:1.13.2-1 0
> 500 http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian-ports/ unstable/main m68k
> Packages
> 1:1.11.6-1 0
> 500 http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian-ports/ unstable/main m68k
> Packages
>
> I expect more packages to FTBFS soonish.
>
> There’s no existing bugreport against *either* libnfsidmap *or* automake,
> and I’m not filing one because I don’t know which of those packages is in
> the wrong, for now, since this apparently didn’t get discussed any further.
>
> bye,
> //mirabilos
>
>
--
Eric Dorland <eric@kuroneko.ca>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: hooty@jabber.com
Reply to: