On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 02:45:40PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > > On 15 May 2005 at 12:26, Steve Langasek wrote: > | On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 02:21:53PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > | > | > On 14 May 2005 at 18:44, Steve Langasek wrote: > | > | > whereas my shlibs is unversioned, hence the mismatch/lack of entry for > | > | > RQuantLib: > | > | > | > edd@homebud:~> cat /var/lib/dpkg/info/libquantlib0.shlibs > | > | > libQuantLib 0 libquantlib0 > | > | > libQuantLibFunctions 0 libquantlib0 > | > | > edd@homebud:~> > | > | > | > That warrants a new libquantlib0 release, doesn't it? > | > | > | Yes, it does. > | > | > New quantlib 0.3.9-2 packages (libquantlib0, libquantlib0-dev, > | > quantlib-example) are on their way now. > | > | > I will follow up with new versions of quantlib-ruby, quantlib-python and > | > r-cran-rquantlib by tomorrow to give the autobuilders a chance to prepare > | > 0.3.9-2 which these will depends upon. > | > | Doh. All four of these need to be reuploaded? I thought only > | r-cran-rquantlib was broken..? > Well, look two quotes above where we determined that my shlibs was fscked > (which indeed it was). Not one of the depending packages had a correct > Depends line due my bad shlibs file. Oh, eew. > I haven't build quantlib-python and quantlib-ruby. If you want, I can skip > the upload but it would be cleaner to rebuild'em. No, they need to be re-uploaded; I'm just experiencing sympathy pains for the buildds... -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature