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

Bug#1112337: marked as done (nmu: varnish-modules_0.26.0-2)

Your message dated Thu, 18 Sep 2025 09:12:36 +0200
with message-id <cae39167-9155-4346-a7d9-a0e96deac76c@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#1112337: nmu: varnish-modules_0.26.0-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #1112337,
regarding nmu: varnish-modules_0.26.0-2
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.)


-- 
1112337: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1112337
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: varnish-modules@packages.debian.org
Control: affects -1 + src:varnish-modules
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: binnmu

nmu varnish-modules_0.26.0-2 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild for the new varnish ABI."

I should have updated the ABI tag for my latest varnish upload even if 
the ABI is actually compatible, because the version number changed too, 
but I did not. Hence the need to binNMU varnish-modules.

-- 
ciao,
Marco

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Hi,

On 9/14/25 09:44, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Generally there is dh_varnishabi in place to enforce the dependencies needed by the Varnish modules packages, but in this case the dependency was not strict enough. So you can binNMU varnish-modules or else I can make a new Varnish upload with a different ABI dependency and after that and after libvmod- digest will be out of NEW then you can binNMU varnish-modules and all the other Varnish modules packages. 
Up to you.
Considering the very low popcon and this not affecting a stable release and NEW processing being in the picture, I strongly recommend the first option.
I'm not very excited that I just did it, but I went with your suggestion. I expect you'll try to improve the code to prevent this in the future. 

Paul

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: