On 05/21/2016 11:36 PM, Iustin Pop wrote: > 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. No need, see: #824075 Kind Regards, Bas -- GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1 Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature