Bug#921294: No need to block buster
Dominik George writes: > Correct, will be fixed today. Fix confirmed, thanks! I'll reupload with a tightened build dependency this evening (US/Eastern). -- Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org) http://www.mit.edu/~amu/ | http://stuff.mit.edu/cgi/finger/?a...@monk.mit.edu
Bug#921294: No need to block buster
At least in the case of fltk1.3's originally reported failure, the culprit turned out to be texlive-latex-extra -- Doxygen's (preexisting) usage of (long)tabu wound up running afoul of #920459. I haven't had time to investigate the latest failure, but see a new tl-l-e showed up, and suspect an accidental regression on that front. On February 27, 2019 5:53:43 AM EST, Dominik George wrote: >Hi, > >> > As the new doxygen will not make it into buster (as apparently, it >> > causes major breakage), there is no need to block reverse >dependencies >> > as long as they build with the doxygen currently in buster. >> > >> > (Mind that they actually do *not* currently build, but for anotehr >> > reason - see #921779). >> >> Hi. I don't fully understand this. >> >> For example: How is fltk1.3_1.3.4-8 supposed to propagate to testing >> when it FTBFS in the arch:all autobuilder? > >It failed, but due to another bug. > >Or maybe your bug reports are not clear enough - you are saying that >the >build will fail with doxygen 1.8.15, but doxygen 1.8.15 is not in >Debian >testing (and neither in sid). So *this* bug does not break the build >for >Debian buster. > >-nik -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Bug#921294: No need to block buster
> At least in the case of fltk1.3's originally reported failure, the > culprit turned out to be texlive-latex-extra -- Doxygen's > (preexisting) usage of (long)tabu wound up running afoul of #920459. I > haven't had time to investigate the latest failure, but see a new > tl-l-e showed up, and suspect an accidental regression on that front. Correct, will be fixed today. -nik signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#921294: No need to block buster
Hi, > > As the new doxygen will not make it into buster (as apparently, it > > causes major breakage), there is no need to block reverse dependencies > > as long as they build with the doxygen currently in buster. > > > > (Mind that they actually do *not* currently build, but for anotehr > > reason - see #921779). > > Hi. I don't fully understand this. > > For example: How is fltk1.3_1.3.4-8 supposed to propagate to testing > when it FTBFS in the arch:all autobuilder? It failed, but due to another bug. Or maybe your bug reports are not clear enough - you are saying that the build will fail with doxygen 1.8.15, but doxygen 1.8.15 is not in Debian testing (and neither in sid). So *this* bug does not break the build for Debian buster. -nik signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#921294: No need to block buster
On Sun, 24 Feb 2019, Dominik George wrote: > Control: severity 921297 normal > Control: severity 921298 normal > Control: severity 921294 normal > Control: severity 921300 normal > > As the new doxygen will not make it into buster (as apparently, it > causes major breakage), there is no need to block reverse dependencies > as long as they build with the doxygen currently in buster. > > (Mind that they actually do *not* currently build, but for anotehr > reason - see #921779). Hi. I don't fully understand this. For example: How is fltk1.3_1.3.4-8 supposed to propagate to testing when it FTBFS in the arch:all autobuilder? https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=fltk1%2e3 Thanks.
Bug#921294: No need to block buster
Control: severity 921297 normal Control: severity 921298 normal Control: severity 921294 normal Control: severity 921300 normal As the new doxygen will not make it into buster (as apparently, it causes major breakage), there is no need to block reverse dependencies as long as they build with the doxygen currently in buster. (Mind that they actually do *not* currently build, but for anotehr reason - see #921779). signature.asc Description: PGP signature
