Your message dated Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:02:24 +0200
with message-id <20091109150224.ga5...@straylight.m.ringlet.net>
and subject line Re: Bug#551854: libdsocksd0: Uninstallable package due to
conflict with libc6
has caused the Debian Bug report #551854,
regarding libdsocksd0: Uninstallable package due to conflict with libc6
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.)
--
551854: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=551854
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: libdsocksd0
Version: 1.1.19.dfsg-3
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
# apt-cache show libdsocksd0 | grep Depends
Depends: libc6 (>> 2.9), libc6 (<< 2.10), libpam0g (>= 0.99.7.1)
# apt-cache policy libc6
libc6:
Installed: 2.9-27
Candidate: 2.10.1-1
Version table:
2.10.1-1 0
500 http://cdn.debian.net sid/main Packages
[...]
Makes the package uninstallable on current Debian/sid.
Hint: bitlbee has the same problem, see #551775.
regards,
-mika-
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 12:35:03PM +0300, Peter Pentchev wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:46:08AM +0200, Michael Prokop wrote:
> > Package: libdsocksd0
> > Version: 1.1.19.dfsg-3
> > Severity: grave
> > Justification: renders package unusable
[snip]
> > Makes the package uninstallable on current Debian/sid.
> >
> > Hint: bitlbee has the same problem, see #551775.
>
> Well, as really noted in #551775, this is an artifact of the way libc6
> defines its symbols, and it should be solved with a rebuild of
> the package against the new libc version.
>
> How does the wanna-build team feel about scheduling a binNMU for dante
> and maybe also for bitlbee? Or are there some other issues that
> I've not considered yet (quite possible, come to think of it)?
I think this was fixed by the 1.1.19.dfsg-3+b1 binNMU in sid now,
and the fact that the old version of dante was removed from testing
just as eglibc-2.10 entered; supposedly, the binNMU'd version will
enter testing after a suitable waiting period.
Thanks for the problem report, and here's hoping this is all
the trouble you'll have with dante! :)
G'luck,
Peter
--
Peter Pentchev r...@ringlet.net r...@space.bg r...@freebsd.org
PGP key: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc
Key fingerprint FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553
I am the thought you are now thinking.
pgpKTYQIO0BZ6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---
