fixed 739261 hdf5/1.8.12+docs-1.1 thanks Emilio Pozuelo Monfort a écrit , Le 12/06/2014 20:11: > On 04/06/14 01:17, Gilles Filippini wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Frank Loeffler a écrit , Le 03/06/2014 21:01: >>> Being hit by this myself now, I am a bit surprised by the reaction "can >>> wait a little longer", for an issue that clearly breaks the Fortran >>> interface and seems to be easily fixable. >>> >>> But this aside - is there a plan to get this into _any_ of the future >>> point releases of stable? >> >> I have no plan but getting the binNMU #740561 processed. >> And it all depends on the good will of the release team. > > You've requested a binnmu for stable on ALL architectures. Before scheduling > that, I'd like to clarify some things: > > Is this bug affecting testing/unstable? If not, please mark it as fixed as > appropriate in #739261. This bug doesn't affect testing nor unstable. Marking it fixed for the related version. > Is this bug really affecting all architectures? From what I can see, gfortran in > wheezy is 4.6 everywhere except on amd64, i386, kfreebsd-amd64 and kfreebsd-i386: > > gfortran | 4:4.6.3-8 | stable | armel, armhf, ia64, mips, mipsel, > powerpc, s390, s390x, sparc > gfortran | 4:4.7.2-1 | stable | amd64, i386, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386 > > And hdf5 1.8.8-9 was built against 4.6 everywhere, from what I can see on: > > https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=hdf5&ver=1.8.8-9&suite=sid > > So do we need the binnmu everywhere, or only on those architectures where the > default gfortran was bumped to 4.7, i.e. on amd64, i386, kfreebsd-amd64 and > kfreebsd-i386? My mistake: I took for granted that gfortran was upgraded to 4.7 on all architectures. nmu hdf5_1.8.8-9 . amd64 i386 kfreebsd-amd64 kfreebsd-i386 . stable . -m "Rebuild with current gfortran in wheezy (closes: #739261)" Hoping to get it right this time :/ _g.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature