On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 22:35:41 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> What should I do next?
>
Reuploading the new version (with libaudit1 instead of libaudit0) to
experimental might be a good next step?
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, 2 Feb 2012, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > The packages in deferred don't seem to be versioned appropriately for a
> > NMU?
> >
> >
>
> So the NMU was not just badly versioned, it was also completely broken,
> with a SONAME bump without package name change, breaking all of the
> reverse depen
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 21:31:03 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 22:22:49 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
>
> > I have prepared a NMU for audit which includes a new libaudit1 package (due
> > to
> > an upstream so increment) and a libauparse0 package which splits libauparse
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 22:22:49 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> I have prepared a NMU for audit which includes a new libaudit1 package (due
> to
> an upstream so increment) and a libauparse0 package which splits libauparse
> out of the libaudit package so that the shared objects can change their
Russell Coker (25/01/2012):
> The package libaudit0 is depended on by several X packages, systemd,
> readahead-fedora, and gdm3.
(Please provide a list next time, dd-list is your friend.)
$ apt-cache showpkg libaudit0|grep ^\ \ |grep libaudit0|sort
audispd-plugins,libaudit0 1.7.13
auditd,l
The package libaudit0 is depended on by several X packages, systemd,
readahead-fedora, and gdm3.
deb http://www.coker.com.au wheezy selinux
http://www.coker.com.au/dists/wheezy/selinux/binary-amd64/
I have prepared a NMU for audit which includes a new libaudit1 package (due to
an upstream so in
6 matches
Mail list logo
