Package: lush
Version: 1.2.1-9+cvs20110227
The lush package seems to depend on a very particular version of
binutils,
# info: lush depends on binutils << 2.21.90.20111005 (ok, testing has
version 2.21.90.20111004-2)
# info: lush depends on binutils >= 2.21.90.20111004 (ok, testing has
version 2.21.90.20111004-2)
hence blocking migration of newer binutils to testing ("Updating
binutils makes 2 non-depending packages uninstallable on i386: lush,
nitpic", see
http://release.debian.org/migration/testing.pl?package=binutils), and
also blocking anything which depends on newer binutils, e.g., version
3.0.0-6 of the linux-2.6 package.
I had a look at lush's debian/control file, and I suspect the
dependencies are put in automagically because lush links dynamically
(rather than statically) to one or both of libbfd and libopcodes. Which
is a bad thing to do, as explained in the thread
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg01085.html.
There's one other package which appears to have a similar problem:
nitpic. If you think this bug report makes sense, I can file an identical
one on that package.
Regards,
/Niels Möller
--
Niels Möller. PGP-encrypted email is preferred. Keyid C0B98E26.
Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
