On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 03:07:35PM -0500, pryzbyj wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 11:29:41AM -0800, Paul Traina wrote:
> > Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > >Do you know if there is something wrong with the control file? What
> > >it is even? :)
> > >
> > >Did the .debs just get reuploaded, without rebuilding?!
> > >
> > >Justin
> >
> > It's bizzare, the control file uses the same version macro everywhere,
> > but for the gtk reference, it used the old version. Perhaps there was a
> > problem in the build depends and I don't understand how the expansion of
> > $Source_Version is supposed to work.
> The only thing besides ${Source-Version} in the source control file
> is:
>
> Package: python-gtk2-dev
> Replaces: ... python2.3-gtk2 (<< 1.99.17-4) ...
> Conflicts: ... python2.3-gtk2 (<< 1.99.17-4) ...
>
> ${Source-Version} is substituted by debhelper with the most recent
> version number from the changelog (the upstream portion of which
> should also be in the directory name).
>
> and Conflicts+Replaces means to remove sufficiently old versions of
> python2.3-gtk in favor of python-gtk2-dev.
>
> > In any case, this is a MAJOR problem, as it causes a cascade of failures
> > leading to the gnome metapackages getting uninstalled with an additional
> > cascade of uninstalls if that happens.
> I guess I don't understand this .. I only ran into this problem by
> chance. If it is a serious problem, then you might copy to:
> Debian GNOME Maintainers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > I know folks don't want to upgrade the severity of the problem, but I
> > hope to hell that the gnome team is working on fixing this IMMEDIATELY.
> I only failed to upgrade severity further because RC bugs *prevent*
> testing migration, which is the whole problem, I guess.
>
> pqdo has:
>
> * [2006-02-04] pygtk 2.6.3-2 MIGRATED to testing (Britney)
> * [2006-02-02] pygtk 2.8.2-3 MIGRATED to testing (Britney)
>
> which makes no sense to me at all; Makholm's scripts write those
> messages, not Britney itself, so it could be wrong.
>
> But now I've gone and completely confused myself and I'm not even sure
> if there's a bug, besides that testing is somewhat broken, which isn't
> a real bug anyway. In fact I just checked and it seems this package
> *is* installable in unstable, so this may be nothing but a transient
> testing bug; doh. Do you have reason to think otherwise?
I think the bug might be fixed within 12 hours in either direction of
now ..
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
