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

Bug#767164: extra-cmake-modules: Should not be in Jessie



On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 at 22:00:09 +0100, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> e-c-m is not fully ready for jessie, and nothing should be using it

Actually, attica-kf5 Build-Depends on it. Either attica-kf5,
which is a library but is a leaf package, needs to be removed from
jessie, or e-c-m needs to stay in jessie. Either option seems feasible
according to the "dak rm -R -n" output below.

Please either close this bug, or open a release.debian.org bug
for attica-kf5 and extra-cmake-modules to be removed from testing.

(I have no interest in either of those packages, I'm just trying to
prune the RC bug list a bit.)

Regards,
    S

----

smcv@coccia:~$ dak rm -R -n -s testing  extra-cmake-modules
Will remove the following packages from testing:

extra-cmake-modules |    1.0.0-1 | source, amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el
extra-cmake-modules | 1.0.0-1+b1 | s390x

Maintainer: Debian/Ubuntu Qt/KDE Maintainers <debian-qt-kde@lists.debian.org>

------------------- Reason -------------------

----------------------------------------------

Checking reverse dependencies...
# Broken Build-Depends:
attica-kf5: extra-cmake-modules (>= 0.0.14)

Dependency problem found.

smcv@coccia:~$ dak rm -R -n -s testing attica-kf5
Will remove the following packages from testing:

attica-kf5 |    5.0.0-1 | source
libkf5attica-dev |    5.0.0-1 | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el
libkf5attica-dev | 5.0.0-1+b1 | s390x
libkf5attica5 |    5.0.0-1 | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el
libkf5attica5 | 5.0.0-1+b1 | s390x
libkf5attica5-dbg |    5.0.0-1 | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el
libkf5attica5-dbg | 5.0.0-1+b1 | s390x

Maintainer: Debian/Ubuntu Qt/KDE Maintainers <debian-qt-kde@lists.debian.org>

------------------- Reason -------------------

----------------------------------------------

Checking reverse dependencies...
No dependency problem found.


Reply to: