Luk Claes wrote: > Christian Perrier wrote: >> This is a heads up mail. I don't have much time for analysis of this >> but didn't want to forget sending that notice: >> >> building build_cdrom_isolinux failed, see log file >> dest/build_cdrom_isolinux.log for details >> building build_cdrom_gtk failed, see log file dest/build_cdrom_gtk.log for >> details >> building build_netboot-gtk failed, see log file dest/build_netboot-gtk.log >> for details >> building build_netboot-xen failed, see log file dest/build_netboot-xen.log >> for details >> building build_hd-media failed, see log file dest/build_hd-media.log for >> details >> building build_hd-media_gtk failed, see log file dest/build_hd-media_gtk.log >> for details >> >> The build log shows: >> >> The following packages have unmet dependencies: >> cdebconf-gtk-terminal: Depends: libdirectfb-1.0-0-udeb but it is not >> installable >> cdebconf-gtk-udeb: Depends: libdirectfb-1.0-0-udeb but it is not >> installable >> libcairo-directfb2-udeb: Depends: libdirectfb-1.0-0-udeb but it is not >> installable >> libgtk-directfb-2.0-0-udeb: Depends: libdirectfb-1.0-0-udeb but it is not >> installable >> libvte9-udeb: Depends: libdirectfb-1.0-0-udeb but it is not installable >> E: Broken packages > > I saw the same when I tried the daily build. libdirectfb-1.0-0-udeb is > currently only available in testing anymore, would binNMUs solve the > installability issues or are source uploads needed?
Apparantly binNMUs solve it as the cairo and gtk+2.0 rebuilds fixed 2 of them already. That leaves cdebconf-entropy, cdebconf-terminal, cdebconf and vte. binNMUs will be scheduled for those soon. I guess it's ok if we schedule binNMUs for udeb containing source packages (both udeb-only and mixed ones) for transitions from now on? Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
