On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 04:19:18PM +0300, Stanislav Maslovski wrote: > The package builds on kfreebsd just fine, but I never tested if it > really works there. Actually, before the last upload the package did > not have any explicit dependency on fuse-utils, that is why it > migrated to testing seamlessly in the past. > > That missing dependency was a bug on linux, because the operation of > convmvfs depends on preloading the fuse kernel module (the initscript > of fuse-utils does that) and on the avaliability of fusermount. > > > You might ask kfreebsd porters on debian-bsd list for details. > > I am CC-ing this to debian-...@lists.debian.org.
Because nobody on kfreebsd list was interested, and I myself is not interested in that architecture, I decided to limit the ARCHs by only those supported by fuse-utils. Respectively, I amended the Architecture: line in the debian/control of my package. Then, my sponsor uploaded it to unstable. However, because there had been already a version of my package in testing (sucessfully built on kfreebsd-*) [as I wrote, it got there because originally my package did not have a dependency on fuse-utils, that was, strictly speaking, a bug on linux that I recently attempted to correct], I suspect that this upload would not be enough to let the new version of the package propagate into testing. Please correct me if I am wrong. If not, please let me know what to do in this situation. Many thanks for any help! -- Stanislav -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100414083403.ga11...@kaiba.homelan
