Your message dated Thu, 26 Sep 2019 20:04:39 +0100
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: [Pkg-rust-maintainers] Bug#940983: Bug#940983: rust-sha-1:
rebuilding results in broken dependencies.
has caused the Debian Bug report #940983,
regarding rust-sha-1: rebuilding results in broken dependencies.
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 [email protected]
immediately.)
--
940983: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=940983
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: rust-sha-1
Version: 0.8.1-2
Severity: serious
If rust-sha-1 is re-built, the version mentioned in virtual package names in the provides changes from
"0.4" to "0.8", but the version mentioned in the virtual package names in the depends
stays at "0.4", thus breaking dependencies between the binary packages.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 26/09/2019 19:11, kpcyrd wrote:
I think the problem is dpkg -i. librust-sha-1+asm-dev contains sha-1
with the asm feature enabled, which has an additional dependency on
librust-sha1-asm-dev. To avoid dependency loops and since it's optional
the main sha-1 package doesn't list this dependency, but dpkg -i isn't
able to pull additional packages from the debian archive.
Ah I see the source of my confusion now, there are two packages whose names
differ only by a single character, librust-sha-1+asm-dev and
librust-sha-1-asm-dev .
I initially ran into dependency issues with rust-sha-1 in raspbian. I then went
to try and reproduce those issues in Debian and thought I had done so, but it
turns out I was confused due to the very similar package names.
--- End Message ---
