Bug#913069: python3-arcus + python3-savitar missing in the transition page, but uninstallable
Hi,
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> > https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/python3.7-default.html
> > says: "Affected: .build-depends ~ /python3-dev/"
> >
> > But that doesn't suffice, there's likely a "| .build-depends ~
> > /python3-all-dev/" missing.
>
> That would introduce a lot of false positives, because most packages that
> build-dep on python3-all-dev are not affected by the default change, as they
> should already build for all the supported versions, including python3.7. I
> would prefer to handle this via
>
> is_affected: .depends ~ /python3 (<</
>
> or similar.
I see. Thanks for the explanation.
> Both packages binNMUed.
Thanks!
libsavitar seems to have worked well, but libarcus FTBFS on many, but
not all architectures. I filed a bug report to track this one:
https://bugs.debian.org/914953
Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> Anyway, I'm confident we will find such weird causes other ways.
q.e.d. ;-)
> > Affected source package is e.g. libarcus whose binary package
> > python3-arcus is currently uninstallable, but has no python3-dev in
> > the build-dependencies:
> >
> > Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 10.2.1), cmake (>= 2.8.12), dh-python,
> > libprotobuf-dev (>= 3.0.0), libprotoc-dev (>= 3.0.0),
> > protobuf-compiler (>= 3.0.0), python3-all-dev, python3-sip-dev
>
> That's a bug: https://bugs.debian.org/905803
>
> > The same counts for python3-savitar and src:libsavitar:
> >
> > Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 10.2.1), cmake (>= 2.8.12), dh-python,
> > libpugixml-dev (>= 1.7), python3-all-dev, python3-sip-dev (>=
> > 4.19.12+dfsg-1) | python3-sip-dev (<< 4.19.11+dfsg-1)
>
> And another bug: https://bugs.debian.org/909730
Thanks for referring to these bug reports!
Regards, Axel
--
,''`. | Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>, https://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `' | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
`- | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
Reply to: