On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 11:49:11AM +0530, Ramakrishnan Muthukrishnan wrote: > On Wed, May 4, 2005 10:23 am, Steve Langasek said: > > What is actually broken in testing? The cppunit in testing isn't broken; > > it > > provides a package libcppunit-1.10-0, which contains libcppunit-1.10.so.0. > > Are there misbuilt packages in testing that require libcppunit-1.10.so.2, > > but Depend: on libcppunit-1.10-0? > At one point, there was a package libcppunit-1.10-0, which contained > libcppunit-1.10.so.2, which was fixed later, but some of my packages > which were built against it remained in the unstable but didn't go into > testing. Yesterday, I discovered that the gr-audio-oss and gr-audio-alsa > are in unstable, built against libcppunit-1.10-0 but haven't propagated > into testing (for i386). I promptly did a recompile on my i386 box and > uploaded them. These are the ones I am talking about. > The said packages per se are not broken in testing. But it will be good > to see these in testing together with the new upstream cppunit. Then as I said, this won't be able to get in for sarge, sorry. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature