Your message dated Sun, 18 Dec 2022 13:16:26 +0100
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#1004121: nmu: libgsf_1.14.47-1+b1
has caused the Debian Bug report #1004121,
regarding nmu: libgsf_1.14.47-1+b1
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.)
--
1004121: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1004121
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: [email protected]
Usertags: binnmu
Hello,
Apparently libgsf-1-dev in the archive is not co-installable due to the
documentation (see #814502)
I quickly tried to rebuild the package in amd64 and i386 and it seems
that the documentation in the -dev package is now identical, so
something has been fixed somewhere else.
Could you please schedule a binNMU so the package is co-installable?
Kind regards,
Laurent Bigonville
nmu libgsf_1.14.47-1+b1 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild to fix multi-arch
co-installation"
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 2022-01-24 09:56:17 +0100, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> Le 24/01/22 à 09:51, Laurent Bigonville a écrit :
> > Le 23/01/22 à 18:54, Sebastian Ramacher a écrit :
> > > Control: tags -1 moreinfo
> > >
> > > On 2022-01-21 10:33:22 +0100, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> > > > Package: release.debian.org
> > > > Severity: normal
> > > > User: [email protected]
> > > > Usertags: binnmu
> > > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > Apparently libgsf-1-dev in the archive is not co-installable due to the
> > > > documentation (see #814502)
> > > Are you sue that this bug is still present? The binaries from the last
> > > binNMU (1.14.47-1+) only differ in /usr/lib/${DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH} which
> > > is to be expected.
> >
> > I indeed didn't check myself if the existing packages were having a
> > conflict, but I trusted the error/warning displayed on
> > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/libgsf
> >
> > So the issue is maybe not present on all the architectures actually, mhh
> >
> Just tried and actually there are still differences between amd64 and arm64
> (-dev) packages, but it's not the .html file, it's the .png that contains a
> different timestamp.
>
> And this is caused by the binNMU debian/changelog file that has a different
> timestamp
That's #814502 in libgsf and needs to be fixed there.
Cheers
--
Sebastian Ramacher
--- End Message ---
