On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 07:26:35PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote: > Hello, > A binNMU does not show up in the pts, since there are no source > changes.
Hmm, I wonder if it would be possible for it to show up? Since there are .changes files with binNMUs, and presumably also migration to testing statuses? > > Does anybody know what is going on here? > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2007/02/msg00647.html That seems to explain it (I think). Though I am still confused about why a binNMU is being used even though it is being rebuilt across all archs. > The bug is that a binNMU for bacula was scheduled although it is not > binNMU-able. Usually checking is done whether the package would break > before triggereing the rebuilt. Looks like this was missed this time. OK, that makes sense. No worries then. > If your next sourceful upload would fix this it would make the > release-team's work easier. The fix is simple: I will upload in about 1 hour. > 1. Add a Build-dependency on dpkg-dev (>=1.13.19) > 2. For all in bacula-foo packages that are arch:all replace any > occurence of > Depends: bacula-foo (= ${Source-Version}) > with Depends: bacula-foo (= ${source:Version}) > 3. (optional, but clarify things) For all in bacula-foo packages that > are arch:any replace any > occurence of > Depends: bacula-foo (= ${Binary-Version}) > > Untested (For testing just set the version number to 1.38.11-7+b1 in > debian/changelog and rebuild with dpkg-buildpackage -b), I'll not have > time for a tested patch today or tomorrow but I can probably come up > with one on the weekend if you have not had time to resolve this then. Do I need to update the MySQL build-deps though? It sounds like I should, from reading the message you linked to, but I'm not certain about that. -- John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
