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

Bug#661998: marked as done (version requirement too specific)

Your message dated Sat, 03 Mar 2012 14:13:09 +0000
with message-id <1330783989.8460.247.camel@deadeye>
and subject line Re: Bug#661998: version requirement too specific
has caused the Debian Bug report #661998,
regarding version requirement too specific
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
661998: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=661998
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: linux-tools-3.2
Version: 3.2.1-2
Severity: important

Hi,

running perf gives:

mrvn@frosties:~% perf
/usr/bin/perf: line 24: exec: perf_3.1: not found
E: linux-tools-3.1 is not installed.

But the linux-tools-3.1 package does no exist. There is only a
linux-tools-3.2 package. On the other hand calling perf_3.2 directly
seems to work just fine despite running a 3.1 kernel.

So why is there such a close version requirement between perf and
linux-tools-x.y? Why isn't there a perf_3 binary or just an
alternative that works with 3.x kernels in general

If there actualy is a good reason for the strict version requirement
then please do make sure that linux-tools-x.y packages stick around
longer.

MfG
	Goswin

-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 3.1.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=de_DE (charmap=ISO-8859-1)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

Versions of packages linux-tools-3.2 depends on:
ii  libc6         2.13-21    
ii  libdw1        0.153-1    
ii  libelf1       0.152-1+b1 
ii  libnewt0.52   0.52.11-2.1
ii  libperl5.14   5.14.2-7   
ii  libpython2.7  2.7.2-7    
ii  libslang2     2.2.4-3    
ii  perl          5.14.2-7   
ii  python        2.7.2-9    

Versions of packages linux-tools-3.2 recommends:
ii  linux-base  3.4

Versions of packages linux-tools-3.2 suggests:
pn  linux-doc-3.2  <none>

-- no debconf information

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Sat, 2012-03-03 at 13:04 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
[...]
> So why is there such a close version requirement between perf and
> linux-tools-x.y? Why isn't there a perf_3 binary or just an
> alternative that works with 3.x kernels in general

perf version x.y may generally depend on new kernel features in x.y.

[...]
> If there actualy is a good reason for the strict version requirement
> then please do make sure that linux-tools-x.y packages stick around
> longer.
[...]

That's what snapshot.debian.org is for.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
One of the nice things about standards is that there are so many of them.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


--- End Message ---
Reply to: