mass bug filing about versioned dependency on the libhdf5-7 virtual package
>>>>> Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> writes:
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 08:07:57PM +0700, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
[…]
>> This issue was already discussed [1], and I've filed the respective
>> bug report [2] (to which there was no reply so far, though),
To note is that a new version of the Source: hdf-eos5 was
uploaded to unstable. The issue, however, remains unfixed in
testing.
>> but now I see that there's a few more packages in Wheezy with a
… versioned…
>> dependency on libhdf5-7.
[…]
>> [1] news:udlvci28as8.fsf@dr-wily.mit.edu
>> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.science/5353
>> [2] http://bugs.debian.org/680400
> At least for udav it should be enough to schedule binNMU:
> Control files: lines which differ (wdiff format)
> ------------------------------------------------
> Depends: libc6 (>= 2.2.5), libgcc1 (>= 1:4.1.1), [-libhdf5-7 (>= 1.8.7),-] {+libhdf5-7,+} libmgl5 (>= 1.11), libqtcore4 (>= 4:4.7.0~beta1), libqtgui4 (>= 4:4.5.3), libstdc++6 (>= 4.1.1)
> Installed-Size: [-791-] {+758+}
Thanks for the information.
I tend to think that a re-build (via binNMU or otherwise) will
be sufficient for most of the packages affected.
Unless there'll be objections, I'm going to file the respective
bug reports regarding the versioned dependency on libhdf5-7
against the following packages. (The affected versions and
architectures [though only amd64 and i386 were tested] are
shown, as well as the Depends: list items triggering the check.)
TIA.
cgns-convert [? 3.1.3.4-1_amd64: libhdf5-7 (>= 1.8.7)],
[? 3.1.3.4-1_i386: libhdf5-7 (>= 1.8.7)]
libnexus0 [? 4.2.1-svn1614-1+b1_amd64: libhdf5-7 (>= 1.8.7)],
[? 4.2.1-svn1614-1+b1_i386: libhdf5-7 (>= 1.8.7)]
libnexus0-java [? 4.2.1-svn1614-1+b1_amd64: libhdf5-7 (>= 1.8.7)],
[? 4.2.1-svn1614-1+b1_i386: libhdf5-7 (>= 1.8.7)]
nexus-tools [? 4.2.1-svn1614-1+b1_amd64: libhdf5-7 (>= 1.8.7)],
[? 4.2.1-svn1614-1+b1_i386: libhdf5-7 (>= 1.8.7)]
r-cran-hdf5 [? 1.6.10-1_amd64: libhdf5-7 (>= 1.8.7)],
[? 1.6.10-1_i386: libhdf5-7 (>= 1.8.7)]
tessa [? 0.3.1-6_amd64: libhdf5-7 (>= 1.8.7)]
tessa-mpi [? 0.3.1-6_amd64: libhdf5-7 (>= 1.8.7)]
udav [? 0.7.1.2-3_amd64: libhdf5-7 (>= 1.8.7)],
[? 0.7.1.2-3_i386: libhdf5-7 (>= 1.8.7)]
The following two (also included in my previous list) are
apparently “false positives.”
libhdf5-7-dbg [? 1.8.8-9_amd64: libhdf5-7 (= 1.8.8-9)],
[? 1.8.8-9_i386: libhdf5-7 (= 1.8.8-9)]
libhdf5-dev [? 1.8.8-9_amd64: libhdf5-7 (= 1.8.8-9)],
[? 1.8.8-9_i386: libhdf5-7 (= 1.8.8-9)]
--
FSF associate member #7257
Reply to: