On 07/24/2016 02:42 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > mksh seems installed now, various logs show: > Build needed 00:02:29, 16240k disc space > Build needed 00:02:37, 13340k disc space > Build needed 00:04:14, 17736k disc space > > Those builds started past 20:00 UTC, so I suspect whatever happened at > the time was fixed or so, and mksh built normally afterwards. It appears so. Still weird, because it happened across all architectures, including all ports (even those that don't have dietlibc). > mksh/experimental was uploaded but dak says REJECT, presumably because > dpkg --compare-versions mksh_52c-2+b1 '<<' mksh_52c-2exp3+b1 fails > (while it's OK for their non-binNMU counterparts). Oh, I didn't think of that. I've Cc'd Thorsten Glaser because of this. @Thorsten: because of the dietlibc security upgrade, I requested binNMUs of all affected packages (including mksh), but because your naming scheme for the experimental version the binNMU in unstable now supersedes experimental. (I didn't think of that before I requested the binNMUs.) Could you re-upload the experimental package with a different version number (for example 52c-2+exp3) that doesn't clash with binNMUs, so that the security issue gets fixed also in experimental? Thanks! > util-vserver looks installed everywhere. Yes, except x32, where it FTBFS, but that's not new, and a bug in util-vserver. Thanks for looking into this! Regards, Christian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature