REMINDER: tomb 2.7+dfsg2-1~bpo10+1 ready for review and upload
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
Hello Eriberto,
may I ask you to do this review and upload?
You already reviewed tomb 2.7+dfsg1-1 and 2.7+dfsg2-1, and there is
only a small change to d/salsa-ci.yml for buster-backports.
Regards,
Sven
Am Mittwoch, den 13.11.2019, 20:21 +0100 schrieb Sven Geuer:
> Hello Team,
>
> I just learned how to control the distribution used to run the tests,
> piuparts test don't fail anymore.
>
> Please review and upload the tomb for buster-backports [1]
>
> Cheers,
> Sven
>
> [1]
> https://salsa.debian.org/pkg-security-team/tomb/tree/debian/buster-backports
>
> Am Mittwoch, den 13.11.2019, 20:00 +0100 schrieb Sven Geuer:
> > Hello Team,
> >
> > I prepared version 2.7+dfsg2-1~bpo10+1 of the package [1]. Please
> > review and upload it although it fails the piuparts test in salsa's
> > CI.
> >
> > From what I can see the reason for failing the test is that it is
> > run
> > on the wrong distribution (sid) for buster-backports packages.
> >
> > Excerpts from the logs [2]:
> > [...]
> > 0m0.0s INFO: Command line arguments: /usr/sbin/piuparts --mirror '
> > http://deb.debian.org/debian main' --scriptsdir
> > /etc/piuparts/scripts
> > --allow-database --warn-on-leftovers-after-purge --hard-link -e
> > /tmp/debian-chroot --distribution sid '/builds/pkg-security-
> > team/tomb/debian/output/tomb-dbgsym_2.7+dfsg2-1~bpo10+1_amd64.deb'
> > [...]
> > The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> > tomb-dbgsym : Depends: tomb (= 2.7+dfsg2-1~bpo10+1) but
> > 2.7+dfsg2-
> > 1
> > is to be installed
> > E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.
> > [...]
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Sven
> >
> > [1] https://salsa.debian.org/pkg-security-team/tomb
> > [2] https://salsa.debian.org/pkg-security-team/tomb/-/jobs/411827
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=gW6F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: