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

Bug#844684: marked as done (nmu: dolfin_2016.1.0-5)

Your message dated Mon, 21 Nov 2016 20:03:51 +0100
with message-id <7bdd9dd1-c9fa-6da3-c307-d12d0e209c7d@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#844684: nmu: dolfin_2016.1.0-5
has caused the Debian Bug report #844684,
regarding nmu: dolfin_2016.1.0-5
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.)


-- 
844684: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=844684
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

dolfin doesn't seem to have gotten identified for autobuild against
the new versions of swig and boost.  Please binNMU.

nmu dolfin_2016.1.0-5 . ANY . unstable . -m "Binary build against swig 3.0.10 and boost 1.62"

-- System Information:
Debian Release: stretch/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 4.8.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_AU.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_AU.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 21/11/16 11:04, Drew Parsons wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-11-21 at 09:54 +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> On 18/11/16 05:01, Drew Parsons wrote:
>>>
>>> dolfin doesn't seem to have gotten identified for autobuild against
>>> the new versions of swig and boost.  Please binNMU.
>>>
>> It is built against boost 1.62, and I don't see any swig transition.
>> Why is a
>> rebuild needed for swig?
> 
> Oh yeah, you're right about boost. My system was unable to upgrade to
> boost 1.62 and wanted to remove dolfin if I try to force it. So I
> thought the problem was a a dolfin dependency, but the actual conflict
> was with libboost-1.61-dev.  There must have been a lag when the 1.62
> upload wasn't complete so I couldn't replace 1.61. So I've got the
> boost upgrade completed now, thanks for the clarification.
> 
> The swig dependency is real. dolfin has a tight dependency on swig
> because of bug#675207. So 
> python-dolfin Depends: swig3.0 (>= 3.0.7), swig3.0 (<< 3.0.8~)

Maybe those checks should be removed and the dependency loosen?

> We need that tight dependency updated.

OK, scheduled.

> Is there a way to declare the tight dependency so that it gets picked
> up by the autobuilders automatically? I gather it's not as
> straightforward as normal library dependencies, since it's not a
> question of SONAME compatibility.

Even for library transitions, nothing is rebuilt automatically. For those we get
a transition tracker in https://release.debian.org/transitions/ though, and I
regularly look at that.

In this case, you'll have to keep asking for a binNMU as necessary.

Cheers,
Emilio

--- End Message ---
Reply to: