Your message dated Fri, 9 Jan 2026 21:33:48 +0100 with message-id <389f8398-bcc6-4ec2-8b0c-58a030acbd98@debian.org> and subject line Re: #145257 Re: [britney] migrations can break build-depends has caused the Debian Bug report #145257, regarding [britney] migrations can break build-depends 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.) -- 145257: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=145257 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
- Subject: rumba-utils: Can't fulfill the build dependencies in woody
- From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>
- Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 14:46:46 +0200
- Message-id: <E172X1q-0000ZD-00@r063144.stusta.swh.mhn.de>
Package: rumba-utils Version: 1.0.1-2 Severity: grave Tags: woody This package has a build dependency on librumbabase-dev (>= 1.0.1) that can't be fulfilled inside woody. This is a bad thing in a technical sense (it's e.g. impossible to make security updates for this package) and it might even violate the copyright of this pacakge. BTW: It wouldn't have made sense to send this bug report before the final "normal" testing run of woody because before it would have been possible at any day that the build dependency might be automatically fulfilled. BTW2: A list of packages with broken build dependencies is always available at the Debian QA pages [1]. [1] http://qa.debian.org
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- To: 145257-done@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Re: #145257 Re: [britney] migrations can break build-depends
- From: Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org>
- Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2026 21:33:48 +0100
- Message-id: <389f8398-bcc6-4ec2-8b0c-58a030acbd98@debian.org>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 83ad5da8-3a3e-4972-82cf-e369e33c9a31@debian.org>
- References: <f22f4651-f0e7-1ffa-3daf-e7839e36cfe1@zoho.com> <df5fe8b6-e6c6-9716-01dc-af0ba1b701e9@debian.org> <df5fe8b6-e6c6-9716-01dc-af0ba1b701e9@debian.org> <2e60b9d2-9ec9-4475-b61d-3c144b3b7bb0@debian.org> <[🔎] 83ad5da8-3a3e-4972-82cf-e369e33c9a31@debian.org>
Hi, On 1/4/26 16:43, Paul Gevers wrote:I'm trying to figure out what's special about that situation.It turns out that there was a flaw in the original code. It would fail to block migration if the to-be-broken package in the target suite was already fixed in the source suite. I have fixed that in commit 9843775 and now I consider this bug done.Paul PS: deployment is pending, probably tomorrowAttachment: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--- End Message ---