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

Bug#640641: nmu: keysafe_0.4.0.2-3

On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 12:55, Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 09:21 +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>> 2011/9/6 Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>:
>> > On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 01:26 +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>> >> nmu keysafe_0.4.0.2-3 . ALL . -m "Rebuild with libbotan1.8-dev (>=
>> >> 1.8.13-2) to fix SONAME breakage in libbotan-1.8.2 (= 1.8.13-1)"
>> >
>> > Aside from the fact that the package name was originally not changed to
>> > follow the SONAME bump, now that things have been fixed up this is
>> > "just" an un-coordinated library transition afaics?
>> Yes, it is, but I have filled a transition bug some time ago:
>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=638818
> Our definitions of "some time ago" differ somewhat, it would appear. :-)
> (and the bug is intended to be filed in advance of the upload, to allow
> us to co-ordinate, rather than afterwards).

I know and I am sorry, but that SONAME change went unnoticed on my
side somehow and after that it was too late to let you know _before_
the transition.

> In any case, yes, I missed that when replying, sorry.
>> > If so, was there any reason that binNMUs for monotone weren't also
>> > requested?
>> Because I was just writing the monotone maintainers and I didn't want
>> to step on their toes:
>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=640638#12
> You might want to fix up the version information on that bug - because
> of the merging, it's currently marked as found in both -1 and -4, but
> fixed in -2, which means the BTS thinks it's still relevant in unstable.

Will do, thanks.

> I've scheduled the binNMUs for keysafe and monotone, as they don't
> obviously appear to be involved in other ongoing transitions.

Thank you.

Ondřej Surý <ondrej@sury.org>

Reply to: