Sorry about that. Generally how I transition to a new upstream version is to update the automake package and then upload a new automake1.X package after that. So I will be uploading an automake1.11 package shortly to fix this.
* Thorsten Glaser (t...@debian.org) wrote: > Eric Dorland <eric <at> debian.org> writes: > > > at the very beginning of the jessie release cycle I'd like to propose > > a mass bug filing to remove all the current automake packages in > > unstable (automake1.13 is in the NEW queue). Automake 1.4 in > > Erm. How about you’d have checked with the maintainers of those > packages *before* shoving automake1.13 as “automake” into NEW, > thus breaking the build of unrelated packages? > > http://buildd.debian-ports.org/status/ > fetch.php?pkg=libnfsidmap&arch=m68k&ver=0.25-5&stamp=1369888632 > > Manual analysis: > > (pbuild7107)aranym:/# apt-get install automake1.11 > Reading package lists... Done > Building dependency tree > Reading state information... Done > Package automake1.11 is a virtual package provided by: > automake 1:1.11.6-1 [Not candidate version] > > E: Package 'automake1.11' has no installation candidate > (pbuild7107)aranym:/# apt-cache policy automake > automake: > Installed: (none) > Candidate: 1:1.13.2-1 > Version table: > 1:1.13.2-1 0 > 500 http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian-ports/ unstable/main m68k > Packages > 1:1.11.6-1 0 > 500 http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian-ports/ unstable/main m68k > Packages > > I expect more packages to FTBFS soonish. > > There’s no existing bugreport against *either* libnfsidmap *or* automake, > and I’m not filing one because I don’t know which of those packages is in > the wrong, for now, since this apparently didn’t get discussed any further. > > bye, > //mirabilos > > -- Eric Dorland <e...@kuroneko.ca> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: ho...@jabber.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130602214316.GS32174@gambit
