On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 02:20:42AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Given the listing on <http://packages.debian.org/sid/libsigc++0c2>, it > looks like affected archs are actually: amd64, arm, armel, m68k, s390.
FWIW, I don't have access to wanna-build for armel; you'll need to contact the armel porters separately about binNMUs for that arch. > I guess that the suggested binNMU-round should fix this: > xgsmlib_0.2-7, 2, Rebuild against libsigc++, amd64 arm armel m68k > s390 > shaketracker_0.4.6-5, 2, Rebuild against libsigc++, amd64 > shaketracker_0.4.6-5, 3, Rebuild against libsigc++, arm armel m68k s390 > libicq2000_0.3.2-7, 1, Rebuild against libsigc++, amd64 arm armel m68k > s390 > ickle_0.3.2-7, 1, Rebuild against libsigc++, amd64 arm armel m68k > s390 > gtkguitune_0.7-7, 2, Rebuild against libsigc++, amd64 arm armel m68k > s390 > gabber_0.8.8-9.1, 2, Rebuild against libsigc++, amd64 arm armel m68k > s390 Scheduled, thanks. > gtkmm_1.2.10-8, 2, Rebuild against libsigc++, amd64 arm armel m68k > s390 Superseded by a sourceful NMU. > With a Dep-Wait on libsigc++-dev >> 1.0.4-9.1+b1 (or >= 1.0.4-9.2). dep-wait not needed, libsigc++-dev is already current on all the relevant archs. > I hope I didn't screw up things too much, it's been a while since I > didn't request binNMUs. Unsure about whether I should have put > shaketracker's amd64 along with the other archs, skipping +b2. Either way is fine; the way you've done it is consistent with how binNMUs are usually numbered. > I also didn't check deeper reverse dependencies, but that might be > needed as well. Presumably any such packages whose dependencies would change as a result of this are buggy for not having an explicit build-dependency. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
