Bug#607873: FTBFS: dpkg-gencontrol: error: error occurred while parsing Suggests field
Hi,
On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 10:06:36PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> I don't see how my system is broken and/or misconfigured. At the end
> of the email, you seem to imply that the "broken, misconfigured" part
> is that I'm mixing stable and testing/unstable. My understanding is
No, I am implying that a testing system + stable in s.l is broken,
> that this has always been supported / allowed (and more generally,
> mixing/upgrading from release N and/to release N+1, of which testing
> is an "alpha / beta version"), albeit not very well tested. What is
stable + testing is as you say OK (but then you are on your own anyways)
> No, this is not wrong. It states that this bug is present in version
> 1:3.2.1-10, and it is. It does not state anything about past versions,
> it does not say past versions don't have this bug, and it does not
> state that past versions have this bug.
True, nevertheless you blocked other fixes with that.
(And if you used testing why didn't you dfile it against testings version?)
> >> APT prefers testing
> >> APT policy: (600, 'testing'), (600, 'stable'), (500, 'stable'), (300, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
>
> > ... and the above works unless someone has such a broken mix (what has "stable"
> > to do here?!) which results in two different libdb-devs pointing to different
> > lidbX.Ys on his system...
>
> No, they are not "on the system", but available for installation. One
They are "on the system" in the sense of apts cache.
> could even have a non-Debian repository in /etc/apt/sources.list, that
> offers yet another libdb-dev, with a higher (or lower) pin and/or
That would be even more broken, imho. For important libs like libdb that is...
And will cause people to build against the wrong one..
Anyway, bug already fixed...
Grüße/Regards,
René
Reply to: