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

Re: libnet-z3950-zoom-perl_1.16-1_multi.changes REJECTED



gregor herrmann a écrit :
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:04:57 +0000, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> 
>> Depends: perlapi-5.8.8, perl (>=5.8.8-7), 2.1.48, libc6 (>=2.3.6-6),
>>          libssl0.9.8 (>=0.9.8c-1), libwrap0, libxml2 (>=2.6.27),
>> 	 libxslt1.1 (>=1.1.18), libmarc-record-perl
>>
>> Whats 2.1.48 for a package?
> 
> Interested. I've rebuilt libnet-z3950-zoom-perl in 3 different ways,
> here are the resulting  Depends: lines:
> 
> cowbuilder
>  Depends: perlapi-5.8.8, perl (>= 5.8.8-7), 2.1.48, libc6 (>= 2.3.6-6), libssl0.9.8 (>= 0.9.8c-1), libwrap0, libxml2 (>= 2.6.27), libxslt1.1 (>= 1.1.18), libmarc-record-perl
>  
> pbuilder
>  Depends: perlapi-5.8.8, perl (>= 5.8.8-7), 2.1.48, libc6 (>= 2.3.6-6), libssl0.9.8 (>= 0.9.8c-1), libwrap0, libxml2 (>= 2.6.27), libxslt1.1 (>= 1.1.18), libmarc-record-perl
>    
> "normal" environment
>  Depends: perlapi-5.8.8, perl (>= 5.8.8-7), libc6 (>= 2.3.6-6), libssl0.9.8 (>= 0.9.8c-1), libwrap0, libxml2 (>= 2.6.27), libxslt1.1 (>= 1.1.18), libyaz2 (>= 2.1.48 ), libmarc-record-perl
> 
> The problem might be related to the fact that libyaz2 is only in
> experimental and/or in my local repository.
> 
> Probably a "careful" rebuild of the package should be enough ...

The problem comes from the libyaz2 package.
The 2.1.48+debian.1-0.1 had a bug in the generated .shlibs.
I was using "dh_makeshlibs -V 2.1.48"
I correct this in 2.1.48+debian.1-0.2 (that is the one in experimental)
Now, I call "dh_makeshlibs -V 'libyaz2 (>= 2.1.48)".

  But I forgot to rebuild libnet-z3950-zoom-perl that have been built
with the wrong version.
  I reupload libnet-z3950-zoom-perl yesterday with no changes in its sources
(but the new changelog entry)

Note that I use dh_makeshlibs in the yaz package because the upstream
(that offers debian packages) and the current maintainer use it. I'm not
sure that this is really needed.

  Best regards,
    Vincent

> Cheers,
> gregor 
>  



Reply to: