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

Bug#731414: marked as done (pu: NMU proftpd-mod-vroot/0.9.2-2)

Your message dated Sun, 21 Feb 2016 10:59:54 +0000
with message-id <20160221105954.GQ6200@betterave.cristau.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#731414: pu: NMU proftpd-mod-vroot/0.9.2-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #731414,
regarding pu: NMU proftpd-mod-vroot/0.9.2-2
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.)


-- 
731414: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=731414
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Tags: wheezy
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu

According to #715569 proftpd-mod-vroot needs to be rebuilt to be
functional with the proftpd in wheezy. The 0.9.2-2+b2 binNMU that is to
be found in most architectures in wheezy has been built against
proftpd 1.3.4a-1, while wheezy has 1.3.4a-5+deb7u1 nowadays.
I have no idea what causes this binary incompatibility.

The usual command would probably be 

nmu proftpd-mod-vroot_0.9.2-2 . ALL . wheezy . -m "rebuild against proftpd 1.3.4a-5+deb7u1"

but there has already been another binNMU in sid, so the next binNMU
version is already taken:

 proftpd-mod-vroot | 0.9.2-2    | wheezy | source, armhf
 proftpd-mod-vroot | 0.9.2-2    | sid    | source
 proftpd-mod-vroot | 0.9.2-2+b1 | wheezy | s390x
 proftpd-mod-vroot | 0.9.2-2+b1 | sid    | armhf
 proftpd-mod-vroot | 0.9.2-2+b2 | wheezy | amd64, armel, i386, ia64, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc
 proftpd-mod-vroot | 0.9.2-2+b2 | sid    | s390x
 proftpd-mod-vroot | 0.9.2-2+b3 | sid    | amd64, armel, i386, ia64, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, sparc


Andreas

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Sat, Dec  7, 2013 at 13:36:33 +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote:

> Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
> 
> On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 10:50 +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> > According to #715569 proftpd-mod-vroot needs to be rebuilt to be
> > functional with the proftpd in wheezy. The 0.9.2-2+b2 binNMU that is to
> > be found in most architectures in wheezy has been built against
> > proftpd 1.3.4a-1, while wheezy has 1.3.4a-5+deb7u1 nowadays.
> > I have no idea what causes this binary incompatibility.
> [...]
> >  proftpd-mod-vroot | 0.9.2-2    | wheezy | source, armhf
> >  proftpd-mod-vroot | 0.9.2-2    | sid    | source
> >  proftpd-mod-vroot | 0.9.2-2+b1 | wheezy | s390x
> >  proftpd-mod-vroot | 0.9.2-2+b1 | sid    | armhf
> >  proftpd-mod-vroot | 0.9.2-2+b2 | wheezy | amd64, armel, i386, ia64, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc
> >  proftpd-mod-vroot | 0.9.2-2+b2 | sid    | s390x
> >  proftpd-mod-vroot | 0.9.2-2+b3 | sid    | amd64, armel, i386, ia64, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, sparc
> 
> Before we consider another rebuild in sid with a higher binNMU number,
> do we know whether the package currently works there?
> 
> Binary incompatibility breaking within uploads of the same upstream
> release a) sucks and b) seems like something that should be expressed in
> package relationships (or better yet, fixed).
> 
No followup in 2+ years; closing.

Cheers,
Julien

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: