Your message dated Sun, 20 Nov 2011 19:10:04 +0100
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#649382: libghemical: Not binNMUable
has caused the Debian Bug report #649382,
regarding libghemical: Not binNMUable
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
649382: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=649382
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: libghemical
Version: 2.99.1-2
Severity: normal
libghemical is not binNMU-ready:
mba@hartree:~/build$ dpkg -I libghemical5_2.99.1-2+b1_amd64.deb | grep
Depends
Depends: libblas3gf | libblas.so.3gf | libatlas3gf-base, libc6 (>=
2.2.5), libgcc1 (>= 1:4.1.1), libgfortran3 (>= 4.3), liblapack3gf |
liblapack.so.3gf | libatlas3gf-base, libmopac7-1gf, libopenmpi1.3,
libquadmath0 (>= 4.6), libsc7, libstdc++6 (>= 4.6), libghemical-data (=
2.99.1-2)
It depends on libghemical-data=2.99.1-2, thus making it unsinstallable
AFAICT.
Michael
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 6.0.2
APT prefers stable
APT policy: (500, 'stable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-5-686 (SMP w/1 CPU core)
Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 06:55:48PM +0100, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 20.11.2011, 15:30 +0100 schrieb Michael Banck:
>
> > libghemical is not binNMU-ready:
> >
> > mba@hartree:~/build$ dpkg -I libghemical5_2.99.1-2+b1_amd64.deb | grep
> > Depends
> > Depends: libblas3gf | libblas.so.3gf | libatlas3gf-base, libc6 (>=
> > 2.2.5), libgcc1 (>= 1:4.1.1), libgfortran3 (>= 4.3), liblapack3gf |
> > liblapack.so.3gf | libatlas3gf-base, libmopac7-1gf, libopenmpi1.3,
> > libquadmath0 (>= 4.6), libsc7, libstdc++6 (>= 4.6), libghemical-data (=
> > 2.99.1-2)
> >
> > It depends on libghemical-data=2.99.1-2, thus making it unsinstallable
> > AFAICT.
>
> You are IMO completely wrong or I misunderstand you. The package is
> binNMU-safe (we made it binNMU-safe after #435945) and the above is what
> I expect. For the arch:any package libgehmical5 the version is increased
> by the binNMU, but for the arch:all package libghemical-data it is not.
> So libgehmical5=2.99.1-2+b1 *must* depend on libghemical-data=2.99.1-2
> What's your problem with this result?
Hrm, I guess you're right. I just couldn't install it in my chroot
from a test repo and was assuming there was a bug. Should work as
expected with the real archive.
Michael
--- End Message ---
