On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 10:53:51AM +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote: > 12.11.2014 04:27, Diederik de Haas wrote: > > Package: busybox-static > > Version: 1:1.22.0-11 > > Severity: important > > > > This is basically the same error as with bug #757941, but it was > > reassigned to glibc and fixed there. As Aurelien Jarno correctly stated > > in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=757941#120 > > it was indeed fixed with version 1.22.0-9+b1, which I have verified. > > > > However, I just received version 1.22.0-11 of busybox-static and now it > > fails again: > > Now this is funny. Should I add a versioned build-dependency against > libc6-dev perhaps? > > Because, according to the build log of amd64 (that's your arch), the > package has been built against glibc (= 2.19-11) -- grep for Built-Using > in the build log: > > > https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=busybox&arch=amd64&ver=1%3A1.22.0-11&stamp=1415729242 > > now I wonder how the -9+b1 version has been built against fixed > glibc-2.19-12 while at least one of amd64 buildds have -11 ?
I scheduled the previous binNMUs using --extra-depends, thus forcing the libc version. A quick analysis shows that hurd-i386, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips and ppc64el built busybox against a fixed glibc version, and that amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mipsel, powerpc, s390x and sparc built it against a broken version. At least the built-using field is great to find which packages are broken. > And there's nothing I can do about this on busybox side -- except, > again, adding a versioned build-dep. I'll schedule binNMUs for now, but it might be a good idea to add a versioned build-dep so that it doesn't happen again. Aurelien -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141112170528.gg...@hall.aurel32.net
