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

NMU round needed for libsigc++0c2 rdeps, on several archs



Maw,

Ana just sponsored my libsigc++ NMU to solve both #260256 (FTBFS on
GNU/kFreeBSD, due to outdated libtool, and a missing autoconf tweak) and
#450662 (missing shared objects on amd64, due to outdated libtool too).

I had a quick look at the rdeps:
| i386$ apt-cache rdepends libsigc++0c2 
| libsigc++0c2
| Reverse Depends:
|   xgsmlib
|   shaketracker
|   libsigc++-dev
|   libicq2000c2
|   libgtkmm1.2-0c2a
|   libgnomemm1.2-9c2
|   ickle
|   gtkguitune
|   gabber
| 
| amd64$ apt-cache rdepends libsigc++0c2
| libsigc++0c2
| Reverse Depends:
|   libsigc++-dev

Another quick look at the rdeps, and it looks like no amd64-specific
bugs were reported about that.

Given the listing on <http://packages.debian.org/sid/libsigc++0c2>, it
looks like affected archs are actually: amd64, arm, armel, m68k, s390.

I guess that the suggested binNMU-round should fix this:
  xgsmlib_0.2-7,        2, Rebuild against libsigc++, amd64 arm armel m68k s390
  shaketracker_0.4.6-5, 2, Rebuild against libsigc++, amd64
  shaketracker_0.4.6-5, 3, Rebuild against libsigc++, arm armel m68k s390
  libicq2000_0.3.2-7,   1, Rebuild against libsigc++, amd64 arm armel m68k s390
  gtkmm_1.2.10-8,       2, Rebuild against libsigc++, amd64 arm armel m68k s390
  ickle_0.3.2-7,        1, Rebuild against libsigc++, amd64 arm armel m68k s390
  gtkguitune_0.7-7,     2, Rebuild against libsigc++, amd64 arm armel m68k s390
  gabber_0.8.8-9.1,     2, Rebuild against libsigc++, amd64 arm armel m68k s390

With a Dep-Wait on libsigc++-dev >> 1.0.4-9.1+b1 (or >= 1.0.4-9.2).

I hope I didn't screw up things too much, it's been a while since I
didn't request binNMUs. Unsure about whether I should have put
shaketracker's amd64 along with the other archs, skipping +b2.

I also didn't check deeper reverse dependencies, but that might be
needed as well.

Cheers,

-- 
Cyril Brulebois

PS: I've put Daniel in copy, just in case; unsure whether to put all
    other maintainers there at the moment.

Attachment: pgpNNRkfgPGCg.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: