Bug#648043: Too strict dependencies on binutils, maybe due to inappropriate dynamic linking with binutils libraries?
The nitpic package seems to depend on a very particular version of
# info: nitpic depends on binutils << 220.127.116.1111005 (ok, testing has
# info: nitpic depends on binutils >= 18.104.22.16811004 (ok, testing
has version 22.214.171.12411004-2)
hence blocking migration of newer binutils to testing ("Updating
binutils makes 2 non-depending packages uninstallable on i386: lush,
also blocking anything which depends on newer binutils, e.g., version
3.0.0-6 of the linux-2.6 package.
I suspect the dependencies are put in automagically because of
dynamically (rather than statically) linking to one or both of libbfd
and libopcodes. Which is a bad thing to do, as explained in the thread
I have already filed a similar bug report on the other package, lush,
which blocks binutils in a similar way, see
Niels Möller. PGP-encrypted email is preferred. Keyid C0B98E26.
Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance.