+ Peter Pentchev (Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:27:06 +0300): > Hi,
Hello, Peter. > I've been seeing this for the past two weeks: > http://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=dante > libdsocksd0/alpha unsatisfiable Depends: libc6.1.1 (>> 2.9) > libsocksd0/alpha unsatisfiable Depends: libc6.1.1 (>> 2.9) > ...and I'm not exactly sure what the problem is. Okay, so I see > that libc6 has some weirdness on alpha (building a libc6.1 instead > of libc6), but still I'm really not sure where the libc6.1.1 instead > of libc6.1 comes from. > What should I do now? > - look for a problem in debhelper 7 on alpha (shlibds:Depends generation) > - look for a problem in the build hardening wrapper on alpha > - look for a problem in dante's control file (but it's just shlibs:Depends > and misc:Depends for those two libraries) > - poke and anger the wanna-build gods to do something by hand > - just wait patiently? :) Poking the wanna-build people on debian-wb-t...@lists.debian.org works, and surely we wouldn’t be angered. ;-) Alternatively, if a package is 10 days old and doesn’t have RC bugs, you can inquire in debian-rele...@lists.debian.org and ask why it isn’t migrating, no need to wait for two weeks. :-) In this case, we were aware of the problem, and it’s been solved recently via a Bin-NMU. In fact, dante has managed to migrate to testing already. The problem was a bug in the shlibs file for glibc, causing it to create bogus dependencies on alpha for some packages. These have been all Bin-NMUed by Kurt Roeckx. Cheers, -- - Are you sure we're good? - Always. -- Rory and Lorelai -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
