Hello again, On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 02:57:27PM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 02:44:12PM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > > So bjorn.haxx.se says: > > > > Checking cppunit > > > > * trying to update cppunit from 1.12.0-3 to 1.12.1-1 (candidate is 98 days old) > > * Updating cppunit makes 2 non-depending packages uninstallable on i386: libsp-gxmlcpp-dev, libsp-gxmlcpp1c2a > > o binary package libsp-gxmlcpp-dev is part of source package sp-gxmlcpp > > + sp-gxmlcpp has the same version in unstable and testing (1.0.20040603-3) > > o binary package libsp-gxmlcpp1c2a is part of source package sp-gxmlcpp (explained above) > > > > > > This leaves me with three questions: > > > > 1. How can cppunit make a non-depending package uninstallable? > > > > 2. The gxmlcpp packages are already the same version on testing and > > unstable, so if there would be a problem moving cppunit to testing, > > the same problem must already exist for unstable. What is the > > problem? > > OK, so I discovered the answer to #2: it is indeed uninstallable in > sid; see below. I think gxmlcpp just needs to be rebuilt to cope with > the cppunit SONAME change (cppunit lib package is now > libcppunit-1.12-1). Thanks to Philipp Kern for scheduling binNMUs of gxmlcpp in response to my message. I see that they are now all finished and installed. Yet the PTS for gxmlcpp doesn't show the +b1 packages in unstable. And the haxx.se excuses for cppunit still read as above; i.e. no mention of the +b1 version, and still the claim that they have the same version in unstable and testing. What's up with that? Thanks, -Steve
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature