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

Bug#795283: marked as done (nmu: libbuffy, libbuffy-bindings)

Your message dated Tue, 1 Sep 2015 10:19:53 +0200
with message-id <20150901081953.GT3107@betterave.cristau.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#795283: nmu: libbuffy, libbuffy-bindings
has caused the Debian Bug report #795283,
regarding nmu: libbuffy, libbuffy-bindings
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
795283: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=795283
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu

libbuffy is a static library, linked to libwibble which is also a static
library (but was binNMU'd already). Matthias only looked for shared
libraries for the mass bug filing, so these aren't on the Huge
Transition List. buffy is not going to complete the libsigc++-2.0
transition until this stack is rebuilt.

I haven't tested these, but this looks right, and can't be a whole lot
worse than buffy's current FTBFS:

nmu libbuffy_1.9.2-2 . ALL . -m "Rebuild with g++-5"
nmu libbuffy-bindings_0.16 . ALL . -m "Rebuild with libbuffy built with
g++-5"
dw libbuffy-bindings_0.16 . ALL . -m "libbuffy-dev (>= 1.9.2-2+b1)"
dw buffy_1.5-2 . ALL . -m "libbuffy-dev (>= 1.9.2-2+b1)"

Regards,
    S

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Tue, Sep  1, 2015 at 08:03:49 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 at 20:38:45 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 16:40:10 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > > nmu libbuffy_1.9.2-2 . ALL . -m "Rebuild with g++-5"
> > > nmu libbuffy-bindings_0.16 . ALL . -m "Rebuild with libbuffy built with
> > > g++-5"
> > > dw libbuffy-bindings_0.16 . ALL . -m "libbuffy-dev (>= 1.9.2-2+b1)"
> > > dw buffy_1.5-2 . ALL . -m "libbuffy-dev (>= 1.9.2-2+b1)"
> > > 
> > IIRC enrico told me yesterday he had a major new upstream queued for
> > these (or I'm confusing them with some other packages).  cc added.
> 
> This does not appear to have happened, and libbuffy-bindings has now
> attracted a FTBFS bug. Should we continue with binNMUs anyway?
> 
I guess so.

jcristau@wuiet:~$ wb nmu libbuffy_1.9.2-2 . ANY -mips64el . -m "Rebuild with g++-5"; wb nmu libbuffy-bindings_0.16 . ANY -mips64el . -m "Rebuild with libbuffy built with g++-5" ; wb dw libbuffy-bindings_0.16 . ANY -mips64el . -m "libbuffy-dev (>= 1.9.2-2+b1)" ; wb dw buffy . ANY -mips64el . -m "libbuffy-dev (>= 1.9.2-2+b1)"

The dep-waits may be wrong for some ports archs but I can't really be bothered.

Cheers,
Julien

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: