Something seems wrong with the gcc-4.9 source package in the archive
I am seeing something very confusing with the gcc-4.9 source package.
On jessie, gcc-4.9 is currentl version 4.9.1-19. However if you do
'apt-get source gcc-4.9' it gives you 4.9.2-4. For some reason the
Sources.xz for jessie contains entries for gcc-4.9 with versions:
Version: 4.9.1-3
Standards-Version: 3.9.5
Version: 4.9.1-8
Standards-Version: 3.9.5
Version: 4.9.1-9
Standards-Version: 3.9.5
Version: 4.9.1-14
Standards-Version: 3.9.5
Version: 4.9.1-15
Standards-Version: 3.9.5
Version: 4.9.1-16
Standards-Version: 3.9.5
Version: 4.9.1-17
Standards-Version: 3.9.5
Version: 4.9.1-18
Standards-Version: 3.9.5
Version: 4.9.1-19
Standards-Version: 3.9.5
Version: 4.9.2-2
Standards-Version: 3.9.6
Version: 4.9.2-3
Standards-Version: 3.9.6
Version: 4.9.2-4
Standards-Version: 3.9.6
I was expecting just 4.9.1-19 to be there.
In adddition to that, if you ask 'apt-cache showsrc gcc-4.9', you
see the Build-Dep for 4.9.2-4 as needing binutils 2.24.90.20141128,
but if you look at the debian/control in 4.9.2-4 (that it downloaded),
the binutils build-dep is in fact 2.23.52. How did it get that wrong
in the Sources.xz?
So any idea what has gone wrong with the archive maintainance tools for
jessie and how to get it fixed? For that matter, why are the 4.9.2-4
sources still in the archive, if no release currently uses it (sid is
4.9.2-10 and jessie is 4.9.1-19. The rest would seem like they should
no longer exist other than on the snapshot server. Currently the list
of .dsc files for gcc-4.9 in the archive is:
gcc-4.9_4.9.1-3.dsc
gcc-4.9_4.9.1-7.dsc
gcc-4.9_4.9.1-8.dsc
gcc-4.9_4.9.1-9.dsc
gcc-4.9_4.9.1-14.dsc
gcc-4.9_4.9.1-15.dsc
gcc-4.9_4.9.1-16.dsc
gcc-4.9_4.9.1-17.dsc
gcc-4.9_4.9.1-18.dsc
gcc-4.9_4.9.1-19.dsc
gcc-4.9_4.9.2-2.dsc
gcc-4.9_4.9.2-3.dsc
gcc-4.9_4.9.2-4.dsc
gcc-4.9_4.9.2-5.dsc
gcc-4.9_4.9.2-10.dsc
That seems a lot longer than one would normally expect to see for
a package.
So if you ask jessie to get the sources for gcc-4.9, it gets the wrong
version, and it can't install the build-dep for it because it has the
wrong build-dep data too.
(Please CC me on replies, since I am not on this list).
--
Len Sorensen
Reply to: