On 2016-05-11 11:18:53, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 12:47:58PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote: > > > - "Binary Package: libprotobuf-lite9v5: Package is optional and has a > > > Conflicts on libprotobuf-lite9 which is optional"; the problem is that > > > it libprotobuf-lite9v5 not only conflicts, but also _replaces_ > > > libprotobuf-lite9, as such the conflicts relation is correct > > > > libprotobuf-lite9 is no longer built from source, so it should have been > > removed semi-automatically by ftp-masters (and then debcheck woudn't have a > > reason to complain). Dunno why it didn't happen... > > Because there are rdeps. > > * source package protobuf version 2.6.1-2 no longer builds > binary package(s): libprotobuf-lite9 libprotobuf9 libprotoc9 > on amd64,arm64,armel,armhf,hurd-i386,i386,kfreebsd-amd64,kfreebsd-i386,mips,mipsel,powerpc,ppc64el,s390x > - suggested command: > dak rm -m "[auto-cruft] NBS (no longer built by protobuf)" -s unstable -a amd64,arm64,armel,armhf,hurd-i386,i386,kfreebsd-amd64,kfreebsd-i386,mips,mipsel,powerpc,ppc64el,s390x -p -R -b libprotobuf-lite9 libprotobuf9 libprotoc9 > - broken Depends: > node-mapnik: node-mapnik [armel armhf i386 kfreebsd-amd64 kfreebsd-i386 mipsel] Ah, interesting. I didn't do the upload which introduced this migration, so I didn't know what's the status of rdeps. I'll ping the maintainers of node-mapnik, thanks for the info. iustin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature