Re: qiime REMOVED from testing
Hi,
I hope this is the correct list to ask this questions - if not please
redirect me (and also please CC me in your reply). [debian-mentors in
CC as well - may be some other people have a similar problem.]
I know that qiime has a serious bug (#731190) where I was seeking for
help six weeks ago with no real result.  So I would have expected to
become kicked from testing because of this bug which would be fine.
However, it is kicked because of an "old libffi" dependency.  I realised
that it had in fact
   libffi6 (>= 3.0.4)
in its dependencies which was included via
   ${shlibs:Depends}  or
   ${misc:Depends}
but I have no idea, how to prevent this.  Would a rebuild be sufficient
to get the "new libffi" dependency or do I need to do more?
Kind regards
       Andreas.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 04:39:17PM +0000, Debian testing watch wrote:
> FYI: The status of the qiime source package
> in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
> 
>   Previous version: 1.4.0-2
>   Current version:  (not in testing)
>   Hint: <http://release.debian.org/britney/hints/jcristau>
>     # 20140120
>     # still depend on old libffi
> 
> The script that generates this mail tries to extract removal
> reasons from comments in the britney hint files. Those comments
> were not originally meant to be machine readable, so if the
> reason for removing your package seems to be nonsense, it is
> probably the reporting script that got confused. Please check the
> actual hints file before you complain about meaningless removals.
> 
> -- 
> This email is automatically generated once a day.  As the installation of
> new packages into testing happens multiple times a day you will receive
> later changes on the next day.
> See http://release.debian.org/testing-watch/ for more information.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Debian-med-packaging mailing list
> Debian-med-packaging@lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-med-packaging
> 
-- 
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: