Dear all, On 09-09-18 22:04, Paul Gevers wrote: > On 09/06/18 21:13, Paul Gevers wrote: >> So it seems they are requested by something, and because the are not >> available in testing, apt-get is not limited by our pinning to take them >> from unstable. I believe it must be a "Provides" of some sort. What I >> want to know (and I will spend some time on it) is what in the >> dependency chain makes us end up with this as an option. > > I was not able to figure out in the time I spend on it why apt-get ended > up with installing those packages. Does anybody know the right commands > and their arguments to figure out this specific question? > > Paul > PS: the last line that I used was: > apt-cache dotty $(echo $(apt-cache showsrc kf5-kdepim-apps-libs | grep > Binary | sed s/Binary:// | sed s/,//g) | sort --unique) dh-acc > exuberant-ctags | grep '++8' I went ahead and let glibc and abi-compliance-checker migrate to testing. I ran reference runs of the failing tests today to check if everything is all-right, and it is. So this is a versioned Depends/Breaks/Conflicts issue somewhere. I am very uncomfortable about this, because today qtbase-opensource-src started to be hit by the same issue. Paul @ qtbase-opensource-src maintainers, this conversation starts here: https://lists.debian.org/debian-ci/2018/09/msg00010.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature