On Mon, 2021-02-08 at 14:07:08 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Guillem Jover <guil...@debian.org> (2021-02-08): > > On Mon, 2021-02-08 at 02:25:01 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > Source: libbsd0-udeb > > > Version: 0.11.1-1 > > > Severity: serious > > > Justification: makes debian-installer FTBFS > > > > > The "new upstream" upload of libbsd builds a udeb that depends on a > > > non-udeb: > > > > > > The following packages have unmet dependencies: > > > libbsd0-udeb : Depends: libmd0 (>= 1.0.3) but it is not installable > > > > > > Please avoid linking against libmd0, or else add a libmd0-udeb > > > package to libmd. > > Thanks for filing this bug report, Samuel. > > > I'd rather not revert the switch to use libmd… > > Assuming that means not linking against it isn't an option (at least for > the udeb)…
The upstream project had md5 and sha512 code embedded, which I stripped away in that upstream version, to use the one in libmd. So reverting would require reintroducing those local copies, build machinery etc. > > but that requires the d-i team to approve (CCed) such package and > > ftp-masters to approve such package. :/ > > … I have no objections on principle for a new udeb at this stage, even > if it seems quite late in the release cycle. (We've traditionally had > some more wiggle room on the d-i side, but that doesn't mean we should > push too hard… ;)) > > > I could have the libmd udeb package uploaded today, though. > > Feel free to let us know about a source package/git repository so that > we have a chance of experimenting with it before or while it's being > reviewed/processed by ftp-masters. Ok, thanks, then I'll upload in 1h at most, and provide repo + src + bin packages. Regards, Guillem
