Hi Raphael, On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:15 AM, Raphael Hertzog <hert...@debian.org> wrote: > In fact, how is this relevant given that the failure reported is a FTBFS > in unstable? > > Or is the mismatch also present in unstable?
Sorry I meant unstable, not testing. But the problem is actually in both unstable and testing as vala 0.32 has been migrated to testing. > Otherwise you can reduce the severity of this bug or regularly send a mail > to it so that the removal delay gets reset. That's right, sorry, totally forgot that, thanks! :) > This means that whatever generates the dependencies in valac-0.32-vapi > should have generated a stronger dependency... and you should reassign > this bug or clone it against that package so that the generated > dependency gets fixed. Yeah I should probably have done that. I wasn't sure if I could directly reassign it as I had a workaround. I created a serious bug instead (https://bugs.debian.org/820641) to the dependency and pushed a patch with the call to this function removed as the upstream author said that this call was not very important. Vincent is reviewing it right now. > BTW if you want a response, you should rather send the questions > to the team in charge of auto-removals as they don't read all bugs! That totally fair, I'll do that, thanks! :) Thanks Joseph
