On 12.09.19 11:49, James Clarke wrote:
On 12 Sep 2019, at 10:18, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
<[email protected]> wrote:
Source: binutils
Severity: normal
User: [email protected]
Usertags: alpha ia64
Hello!
binutils is currently BD-Uninstallable on alpha and ia64 because it
build-depends
on the libc6-dev package on these architectures. However, neither alpha nor ia64
provide that package, they actually have a libc6.1-dev package.
Also affects kfreebsd (libc0.1) and hurd (libc0.3). This isn't actually a bug
in the source however, but a bug in the .dsc itself uploaded to the archive,
which differs in its Build-Depends field; not sure what happened here...
jrtc27@coccia:~$ diff -u <(awk '/^Build-Depends:/{s=$0; next} /^ /&&s{s=s$0; next} s{print s; s=""} END{if
(s) print s}' /srv/mirrors/debian/pool/main/b/binutils/binutils_2.32.51.20190909-1.dsc | sed 's/,/&\n/g') <(tar -O -xf
/srv/mirrors/debian/pool/main/b/binutils/binutils_2.32.51.20190909-1.debian.tar.xz debian/control | awk '/^Build-Depends:/{s=$0;
next} /^ /&&s{s=s$0; next} s{print s; s=""} END{if (s) print s}' | sed 's/ */ /g;s/,/&\n/g')
--- /dev/fd/63 2019-09-12 09:46:12.544764354 +0000
+++ /dev/fd/62 2019-09-12 09:46:12.532764072 +0000
@@ -30,4 +30,4 @@
g++-i686-linux-gnu [amd64 arm64 ppc64el x32] <!nocheck>,
g++-x86-64-linux-gnu [arm64 i386 ppc64el x32] <!nocheck>,
g++-x86-64-linux-gnux32 [amd64 arm64 i386 ppc64el] <!nocheck>,
- libc6-dev (>= 2.29) | libc6.1-dev (>= 2.29) | libc0.1-dev-i386 (>= 2.29) |
libc0.3-dev (>= 2.29)
+
so what is bogus about that? the b-d can be fulfilled, or not?
