On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 02:17:34AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > now that Frank has uploaded a NMU for this bug ("shlibs incorrect" in > liborbit0), the breakage already caused should be fixed some time after > this fixed package has reached sarge (to catch all possible t-p-u or > s-p-u uploads of broken packages). > > Thankfully, it seems all broken binary packages are easily identifiable > due to the unversioned liborbit0 dependency. > > What's the best way to handle packages with such a broken dependency on > one or more architectures? > > Binary NMUs? > By whom (needs access to all 11 architectures including the ability to > install packages)? > RC bugs?
Depends on the affected architectures. A list of currently affected packages (I've found no cases where the liborbit0 depends is at the end of a Depnds line in case someone wonders) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/org/packages.debian.org/files/archive$ grep-dctrl -sPackage -n -FDepends liborbit0, testing_*Packages | sort | uniq libgnome-vfs-common libgnome-vfs0 liborbit-dev orbit sgcontrol [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/org/packages.debian.org/files/archive$ grep-dctrl -sPackage -n -FDepends liborbit0, unstable_*Packages | sort | uniq bonobo libbonobo2 libgnome-vfs-common libgnome-vfs0 liborbit-dev orbit sgcontrol For sgcontrol, only arm seems affected, for gnome-vfs all arches, same for bonobo. So I would say binNMU for sgcontrol and source-full uploads for the other two. Let's hope we don't get way more of these... Gruesse, -- Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www: http://www.djpig.de/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]