Bug#769190: Bug#757941: Bug#769190: busybox-static: DNS resolver is broken again with the last upload

2014-11-12 Thread Michael Tokarev
13.11.2014 00:03, Michael Tokarev пишет: > 12.11.2014 22:45, Aurelien Jarno wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 09:17:20PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote: >>> Should I list them all in the build-deps? If yes, what's the complete list? > >> It should be libc6-dev[linux-any !alpha !ia64] | libc6.1-dev

Bug#769190: Bug#757941: Bug#769190: busybox-static: DNS resolver is broken again with the last upload

2014-11-12 Thread Aurelien Jarno
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:03:39AM +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote: > 12.11.2014 22:45, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 09:17:20PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote: > >> Should I list them all in the build-deps? If yes, what's the complete > >> list? > > > It should be libc6-dev[linux

Bug#769190: Bug#757941: Bug#769190: busybox-static: DNS resolver is broken again with the last upload

2014-11-12 Thread Steven Chamberlain
Hi, Michael Tokarev wrote: > Since this is all alternatives, is it really necessary to list the [arch] > names? I mean, just list of pkgs with versions should be enough I think, > each arch will pick the right name, no? I could be wrong, but I think within sbuild only the first of the alternativ

Bug#769190: Bug#757941: Bug#769190: busybox-static: DNS resolver is broken again with the last upload

2014-11-12 Thread Michael Tokarev
12.11.2014 22:45, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 09:17:20PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote: >> Should I list them all in the build-deps? If yes, what's the complete list? > It should be libc6-dev[linux-any !alpha !ia64] | libc6.1-dev [alpha ia64] | > libc0.1-dev (>> 2.19-12~) [kfr

Bug#769190: Bug#757941: Bug#769190: busybox-static: DNS resolver is broken again with the last upload

2014-11-12 Thread Aurelien Jarno
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 09:17:20PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote: > 12.11.2014 21:05, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > [] > >> And there's nothing I can do about this on busybox side -- except, > >> again, adding a versioned build-dep. > > > > I'll schedule binNMUs for now, but it might be a good idea to ad

Bug#769190: Bug#757941: Bug#769190: busybox-static: DNS resolver is broken again with the last upload

2014-11-12 Thread Michael Tokarev
12.11.2014 21:05, Aurelien Jarno wrote: [] >> And there's nothing I can do about this on busybox side -- except, >> again, adding a versioned build-dep. > > I'll schedule binNMUs for now, but it might be a good idea to add a > versioned build-dep so that it doesn't happen again. Please don't. I

Bug#769190: Bug#757941: Bug#769190: busybox-static: DNS resolver is broken again with the last upload

2014-11-12 Thread Michael Tokarev
BTW, the bug is _not_ fixed by -12 upload where I added a build-dep on libc-bin. /mjt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/546396a3.1000...@msgid.tls.msk.r

Bug#769190: Bug#757941: Bug#769190: busybox-static: DNS resolver is broken again with the last upload

2014-11-12 Thread Aurelien Jarno
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 10:53:51AM +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote: > 12.11.2014 04:27, Diederik de Haas wrote: > > Package: busybox-static > > Version: 1:1.22.0-11 > > Severity: important > > > > This is basically the same error as with bug #757941, but it was > > reassigned to glibc and fixed there

Bug#769190: busybox-static: DNS resolver is broken again with the last upload

2014-11-11 Thread Michael Tokarev
12.11.2014 04:27, Diederik de Haas wrote: > Package: busybox-static > Version: 1:1.22.0-11 > Severity: important > > This is basically the same error as with bug #757941, but it was > reassigned to glibc and fixed there. As Aurelien Jarno correctly stated > in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugre

Bug#769190: busybox-static: DNS resolver is broken again with the last upload

2014-11-11 Thread Diederik de Haas
Package: busybox-static Version: 1:1.22.0-11 Severity: important This is basically the same error as with bug #757941, but it was reassigned to glibc and fixed there. As Aurelien Jarno correctly stated in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=757941#120 it was indeed fixed with version