On 7 July 2017 15:16:02 BST, Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> wrote: >On Friday, July 07, 2017 02:43:03 PM Rhonda D'Vine wrote: >> Hey Ben, >> >> * Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> [2017-07-07 13:49:12 CEST]: >> > On Fri, 2017-07-07 at 11:19 +0000, Debian FTP Masters wrote: >> > > Version check failed: >> > > Your upload included the binary package linux-source-4.9, version >> > > 4.9.30-2+deb9u2~bpo8+1, for all, >> > > however unstable already has version 4.9.30-2. >> > >> > For fuck's sake, decruft it! >> > >> > This has been blocking kernel security updates to jessie-backports >for >> > over 2 weeks. >> >> I'm terribly sorry about that I missed going over the cruft report >for >> such long, I take the responsibility for that.
Thank you, but I wasn't complaining to you. >> It should be all done >> now, the cruft reports are empty from what I can tell: >> >> rhonda@fasolo:~$ dak cruft-report -s jessie-backports >> rhonda@fasolo:~$ >> >> The message that you receive though points in a different direction >> than cruft report: proposed-updates contain a version higher than >what >> we have in unstable. I think that automatic blocking of versions >higher >> than what we have in unstable is intentional in place. I understood and agree with that. >> Why was a >> version higher than what we have in unstable accepted? Because the security archive doesn't have such a restriction. >> Will it get >> removed from unstable, and if so, when? >> >> Ansgar, do you maybe know how we can force that in for now? Or why >> linux-source-4.9 is still sitting in unstable, it is not in testing >> though. > >* package linux-source-4.9 in version 4.9.30-2 is no longer built from >source Exactly - it's unstable that needs decrufting, which I have previously (and more politely) requested. > - suggested command: >dak rm -m "[auto-cruft] no longer built from source" -s unstable -a all >-p >-R -b linux-source-4.9 > - broken Build-Depends: > user-mode-linux: linux-source-4.9 Aargh. >We're in the middle of dinstall, so I can't remove it now. If I >remember, >I'll go ahead and remove it later today (and uml will have to figure >something >else out). Thank you. user-mode-linux really should be removed or folded into src:linux. Ben. -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
