Bug#816428: marked as done (nmu: hugin_2015.0.0+dfsg-1)
Your message dated Fri, 4 Mar 2016 16:56:54 +0100
with message-id <56D9B046.9040802@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#816428: nmu: hugin_2015.0.0+dfsg-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #816428,
regarding nmu: hugin_2015.0.0+dfsg-1
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.)
--
816428: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=816428
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
nmu hugin_2015.0.0+dfsg-1 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild against libvigraimpex6"
nmu enblend-enfuse_4.1.4+dfsg-5 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild against libvigraimpex6"
Hello,
both hugin and enblend-enfuse were built (or binmued) against a broken
version of libvigraimpex which shipped libvigraimpex.so.6 in a package
still named libvigraimpex5v5. (#813415)
See https://bugs.debian.org/816193
https://bugs.debian.org/813417
cu Andreas
--
`What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are
so grateful to you.'
`I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 02/03/16 19:01, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> On 2016-03-01 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org> wrote:
>> On 01/03/16 20:25, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>>> nmu hugin_2015.0.0+dfsg-1 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild against libvigraimpex6"
>>> nmu enblend-enfuse_4.1.4+dfsg-5 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild against libvigraimpex6"
>
>>> both hugin and enblend-enfuse were built (or binmued) against a broken
>>> version of libvigraimpex which shipped libvigraimpex.so.6 in a package
>>> still named libvigraimpex5v5. (#813415)
>
>> I haven't scheduled the appropriate binNMUs yet because libvigraimpex isn't
>> built everywhere.
>
> Hello,
>
> I am aware of the transition, which is why I have waited two weeks
> before requesting the binNMU. However hugin and enblend-enfuse are only
> broken on the archs where libvigraimpex does build.
>
> So a straight rebuild would fix this serious bug, at the imho small cost
> that a later followup binNMU might be needed when libvigraimpex is
> ready.
>
> Thanks in advance for considering,
Alright. I have scheduled them.
Cheers,
Emilio
--- End Message ---
Reply to: