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

Bug#1001815: marked as done (transition: notcurses)



Your message dated Sun, 9 Jan 2022 15:07:30 +0100
with message-id <YdrsIgdLo47vuMoP@ramacher.at>
and subject line Re: Bug#1001815: transition: notcurses
has caused the Debian Bug report #1001815,
regarding transition: notcurses
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.)


-- 
1001815: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1001815
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: transition
X-Debbugs-Cc: dankamongmen@gmail.com

Hello transition team!

Notcurses has bumped the SOVERSION from 2 to 3 as of its 3.0.0 release,
reflecting a changed ABI and API both.

The only reverse-dep of notcurses is growlight. I am the upstream author
of both. The 1.2.38 release of Growlight is necessary and sufficient
to compile against Notcurses 3. I have already packaged it, and am
simply waiting on the entry of libnotcurses3 into unstable.

Ben file:

title = "notcurses";
is_affected = .depends ~ "libnotcurses2" | .depends ~ "libnotcurses++2" | .depends ~ "libnotcurses-core2" | .depends ~ "libnotcurses3" | .depends ~ "libnotcurses++3" | .depends ~ "libnotcurses-core3";
is_good = .depends ~ "libnotcurses3" | .depends ~ "libnotcurses++3" | .depends ~ "libnotcurses-core3";
is_bad = .depends ~ "libnotcurses2" | .depends ~ "libnotcurses++2" | .depends ~ "libnotcurses-core2";

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 2022-01-01 12:02:23, Nick Black (Public gmail account) wrote:
> > No, only in unstable [1]. Testing should still work.
> 
> hrmm, i'm a bit confused about how this works then. i can only
> upload into unstable, and it then needs to pass autopkgtests to
> get into testing. oh, i guess those autopkgtests are being run
> in the "testing" context? if so, that makes sense.

Indeed, they are. The autopkgtests are executed in testing, potentially
picking necessary dependencies from unstable.

In any case, the transition is done as growlight was auto-removed from
testing.

Cheers
-- 
Sebastian Ramacher

--- End Message ---

Reply to: