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

Bug#790254: nmu: ovito_2.3.3-3



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello All:

On 28/06/15 12:23, Niels Thykier wrote:
> On 2015-06-28 12:03, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> On 27/06/15 20:28, Jerome Benoit wrote:
>>> Package: release.debian.org
>>> Severity: normal
>>> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
>>> Usertags: binnmu
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> the recent tachyon package upgrade comes with a minor library transition:
>>
>> I'm sorry but I don't see what library changed SONAME. Can you explain that?
>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> What seems to be blocking this is a block hint from Niels.
>>
>> $ grep-excuses tachyon
>> tachyon (0.99~b2+dfsg-0.4 to 0.99~b6+dsx-2)
>>     Maintainer: Debian Science Maintainers
>>     Too young, only 1 of 5 days old
>>     Not touching package due to block request by nthykier (check
>> https://release.debian.org/jessie/freeze_policy.html if update is needed)
>>     Not considered
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Emilio
>>
>> [...]
>>
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Tachyon removes a -dev package, which is still used by ovito, which is
> why I blocked the migration.  See [1] for the extended story.  The summary:
> 
>  * I recommended that ovito was updated as it was the only rdep
>    - I assumed it to be faster than re-introducing the -dev package.
>  * Jerome said he had asked the maintainer to do it.
>  * There is no upload of ovito for months and no bug report about it.
> 
> Technically, said package is replaced by a series of "provides" from
> various other packages.  However, I am fairly sure that buildd insist on
> their being exactly 1 provider of a virtual package if it is to be used.
>  In other words, I believe ovito is still unbuildable on our buildds.

I have just tested through pbuilder: you are right, a concrete package
must be specify.

I am on my way to contact the package maintainer of ovito.

 

> 
> Regardless, I prefer that we solve this issue now rather than letting
> Tachyon migrate and leaving ovito broken until someone (re)discovers the
> problem.

I am agree.

Thanks,
Jerome

> 
> Thanks,
> ~Niels
> 
> [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2015/06/msg00173.html
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVj/8qAAoJEIC/w4IMSybjCnIH/1kePB/HKArrznmB8qB91UAW
rsVknHvF/CpcTwGqXuKpTpXJnv2jLmzIjMjLq0oymNyrjyLcatgKVdL1KG6rlDHV
Vw5pMcqbNDzaJKn1KUsO/w6uIWmym2fF8gDWIWf00ZMJz8Wi1T4BqOV+l/5i9B4j
uBR1wJGY/nHLpUS0f7S5xvUnjpX9lnMjwsuxxryFYZU+Zh7yQXtxz+DeZ4Ru0rLd
6MVvSUO3fqOlUCn8YkXe22eJaw4aT0JFnt9s5JrhlveWfsvvmKV/3LmnMOmGZMyR
t3lNHWAIbaoh3/XOXSod7qUBhbyElXty8+RW4aqv4P7JBInYiGSiPLClmAcW4ck=
=nD93
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Reply to: