Thank you Niels, On Mon, 04 Jun 2012, Niels Thykier wrote: > I am not entirely sure if this was implied or not in your sentence, but > we would prefer getting a transition bug before the package is uploaded > to sid.
yes -- that is what I meant (I have sinned twice btw -- just yesterday uploaded fresh libguac -- it is in NEW -- will report transition bug again). but for upcoming upload of libcomedi will report first (may be today) > > Transition is tiny -- just 2 dependent packages on libbiosig-dev > > packages (below). "Transition bug" against biosig4c++ source is > > #675967. > The bts is acting up a bit, so I cannot actually read the contents of > #675967 right now. Anyhow, it appears to be RC, which will stall the > transition so please close it or downgrade it. For the purpose of > tracking the transition, this bug is sufficient. that was a fresh bugreport which I filed to prevent biosig4c++ to migrate to wheezy before all depends are fine (i.e. trying to do "transition" manually). I guess I mixed up the meaning of 'transition bug' and #675967 wasn't really necessary -- closing with this email. > > Outstanding FTBFS on ia64 was fixed (closed now) and I expect it to > > build fine on sparc (which would resolve #633346). > Thanks for solving the ia64 issue so quickly - I see biosig4c++ has > already been rebuilt on all architectures (except sparc and armhf). I > doubt armhf will cause any issues (given armel succeeded and that armhf > succeesfully built 1.3.0-1). > As biosig4c++ has not been built on sparc previously, it is less of a > concern for the transition. But it is nice to see another bug fixed. :) ;-) thanks for thanks. I have built 1.3.0-1 on a local sparc box without problem -- that is why I am somewhat positive about positive outcome on buildd ;) > We already scheduled the binNMUs for these earlier today and indeed > sigviewer appears to be doing fine (still waiting for mipsel and armhf > though). openwalut is still building, but I hope it will be as painless > as you expect. actually openwalnut I haven't tested yet locally so there might be surprises. > > In terms of 'ben' lingo, my non-experienced guestimate that the transition > > should have the following parameters: > > Affected: .build-depends ~ /libbiosig-dev/ > > Good: .depends ~ /lbbiosig1/ > > Bad: .depends ~ /lbbiosig0/ > There is a tracker at [1]. It uses a slightly different "affected" line > as I wrote the ben file before you reported this bug, but yours would > have been just as good (modulo the "lbbiosig" typo?). You can ignore d'oh -- I keep saying myself to cut/paste but keep typing ... sorry about that -- Yaroslav O. Halchenko Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences Dartmouth College, 419 Moore Hall, Hinman Box 6207, Hanover, NH 03755 Phone: +1 (603) 646-9834 Fax: +1 (603) 646-1419 WWW: http://www.linkedin.com/in/yarik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120604171151.gp15...@onerussian.com
