Your message dated Sun, 21 Feb 2016 10:59:54 +0000 with message-id <20160221105954.gq6...@betterave.cristau.org> and subject line Re: Bug#731414: pu: NMU proftpd-mod-vroot/0.9.2-2 has caused the Debian Bug report #731414, regarding pu: NMU proftpd-mod-vroot/0.9.2-2 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 ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 731414: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=731414 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal Tags: wheezy User: release.debian....@packages.debian.org Usertags: pu According to #715569 proftpd-mod-vroot needs to be rebuilt to be functional with the proftpd in wheezy. The 0.9.2-2+b2 binNMU that is to be found in most architectures in wheezy has been built against proftpd 1.3.4a-1, while wheezy has 1.3.4a-5+deb7u1 nowadays. I have no idea what causes this binary incompatibility. The usual command would probably be nmu proftpd-mod-vroot_0.9.2-2 . ALL . wheezy . -m "rebuild against proftpd 1.3.4a-5+deb7u1" but there has already been another binNMU in sid, so the next binNMU version is already taken: proftpd-mod-vroot | 0.9.2-2 | wheezy | source, armhf proftpd-mod-vroot | 0.9.2-2 | sid | source proftpd-mod-vroot | 0.9.2-2+b1 | wheezy | s390x proftpd-mod-vroot | 0.9.2-2+b1 | sid | armhf proftpd-mod-vroot | 0.9.2-2+b2 | wheezy | amd64, armel, i386, ia64, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc proftpd-mod-vroot | 0.9.2-2+b2 | sid | s390x proftpd-mod-vroot | 0.9.2-2+b3 | sid | amd64, armel, i386, ia64, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, sparc Andreas
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 13:36:33 +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > Control: tags -1 + moreinfo > > On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 10:50 +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote: > > According to #715569 proftpd-mod-vroot needs to be rebuilt to be > > functional with the proftpd in wheezy. The 0.9.2-2+b2 binNMU that is to > > be found in most architectures in wheezy has been built against > > proftpd 1.3.4a-1, while wheezy has 1.3.4a-5+deb7u1 nowadays. > > I have no idea what causes this binary incompatibility. > [...] > > proftpd-mod-vroot | 0.9.2-2 | wheezy | source, armhf > > proftpd-mod-vroot | 0.9.2-2 | sid | source > > proftpd-mod-vroot | 0.9.2-2+b1 | wheezy | s390x > > proftpd-mod-vroot | 0.9.2-2+b1 | sid | armhf > > proftpd-mod-vroot | 0.9.2-2+b2 | wheezy | amd64, armel, i386, ia64, > > kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc > > proftpd-mod-vroot | 0.9.2-2+b2 | sid | s390x > > proftpd-mod-vroot | 0.9.2-2+b3 | sid | amd64, armel, i386, ia64, > > kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, sparc > > Before we consider another rebuild in sid with a higher binNMU number, > do we know whether the package currently works there? > > Binary incompatibility breaking within uploads of the same upstream > release a) sucks and b) seems like something that should be expressed in > package relationships (or better yet, fixed). > No followup in 2+ years; closing. Cheers, Juliensignature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---