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

Re: backbone: FTBFS: build-dependency not installable: libnode-uglify



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Hi Lucas, QA contributors,

Le 14/08/2012 03:18, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
> Source: backbone
[…]
> Justification: FTBFS in wheezy on amd64
> 
> Hi,
> 
> During a rebuild of all packages in *wheezy*, your package failed to
> build on amd64.
[…]
>> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
>>  sbuild-build-depends-backbone-dummy : Depends: libnode-uglify but it is not installable
>> E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.
>> apt-get failed.

Actually its an OR dependency:

 libnode-uglify | yui-compressor

The package builds fine in a Wheezy amd64 pbuilder chroot (pulling
yui-compressor), thus closing the bug. I just wanted to put some light
on this issue: maybe the resolver used to perform the archive rebuild
could be improved to avoid this kind of false positive.

I've tagged a few FTBFS on wheezy as unreproducible (because I didn't
investigate why it failed ten days ago, or because I couldn't find an
obvious reason), should I simply have closed them?

Regards

David

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
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=LRPM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Reply to: