On 23/07/15 18:18, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > On 2015-07-23 17:09, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote: >> On 23.07.2015 17:46, Adam D. Barratt wrote: >>> On 2015-07-23 16:41, Adam D. Barratt wrote: >>>> On 2015-07-23 15:49, Andreas Cadhalpun wrote: >>>>> By the way, do you know why vtk6 is shown as bad in the transition >>>>> tracker, >>>>> even though it built successfully with ffmpeg? >>>> >>>> Because building successfully doesn't mean building sanely. >>>> >>>> Package: libvtk6.1 >>>> Source: vtk6 (6.1.0+dfsg2-6) >>>> Version: 6.1.0+dfsg2-6+b1 >>> >>> Specifically, I got the right reason but the wrong reason for it. :-) >>> >>> It's still bad because libvtk6.1 is still in sid. And libvtk6.1 is still >>> in sid because of the mess that is the vtk6 "transition" (#749395, which >>> has been going on for over a year now). >> >> Ah, that explains it. There is a vtk6.1 -> vtk6.2 transition [1] >> going on in the middle of the vtk -> vtk6 transition [2]. >> >> Maybe scheduling binNMUs for the packages depending on libvtk6.1 >> (gammaray, liggghts, mia, nifti2dicom, therion) would help? > > It would, if libvtk6.2 would build in sid on all architectures where 6.1 > builds, > which it doesn't.
See #793304. I have scheduled the binnmus everywhere but on armel/armhf. If vtk6 is dropped on arm* (along with its rdeps) then it should be able to migrate. > (The whole thing is a horrible mess, that much we can certainly agree on.) Yes :( Emilio -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
