Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org> writes: > Hi Simon > > On 2022-08-29 08:09:59 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: >> I could upload a real version too, maybe that is faster? Can do today unless someone objects. > > The rebuilds were scheduled yesterday. See https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=libidn2 Great, thank you! /Simon > Cheers > >> >> /Simon >> >> > 28 aug. 2022 kl. 14:40 skrev Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues <josch@debian.org>: >> > >> > Quoting Cyril Brulebois (2022-08-28 14:20:48) >> >> Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues <josch@debian.org> (2022-08-28): >> >>> The current version of libidn2-0 in unstable still wrongly depends on >> >>> sgml-base. A rebuild of src:libidn2 against the version of debhelper >> >>> that is currently in the archive will fix this problem. >> >> >> >> Sure, that's the part I agree with. >> >> >> >>> I added you to CC because you commented on #1015263 saying "This breaks >> >>> d-i builds". The thing that doesn't have a udeb is sgml-base (which you >> >>> pointed out in the same message). >> >> >> >> Let's backpedal a bit, my message had: >> >> >> >>> Judging by the current list of `apt-cache rdepends sgml-base`, this >> >>> problem has already spread quite a bit. >> >> >> >> This breaks d-i builds, (at least) via libnl udebs picking up a >> >> dependency on sgml-base, which doesn't exist in a udeb context. >> >> >> >> There, “this” = buggy sgml-base dependency spreading, which broke d-i >> >> builds *via libnbl udebs* (which was worked around); that wasn't meant >> >> to mean that libidn2 itself was breaking d-i builds. It can't, as it >> >> doesn't build udebs, so it's no factor. >> >> >> >> Hope that clarifies. >> > >> > Ah cool, thanks! Yes, then d-i is not a reason at all to binNMU src:libidn2. >> > >> > The wrong dependency on sgml-base remains as a reason to do it. >> > >> > Thank you! >> > >> > cheers, josch > > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature