[CCing gnupg2 maintainers, and full quoting / top-posting for their benefit]
Hi gnupg2 maintainers, gnupg2 recently got binNMUed in bookworm, which uncovered the fact that the resulting packages have some broken recommendations. It looks like this is already fixed in unstable and trixie via #1060366. Could you please either prepare and submit a p-u update to make a similar change for bookworm, or ACK that you'd be happy for someone else to do so? Regards, Adam On Wed, 2025-06-11 at 00:37 +0200, David Prévot wrote: > Hi, > > Le Mon, Jun 09, 2025 at 07:49:57PM +0200, Felix Geyer a écrit : > > On Fri, 06 Jun 2025 19:32:32 +0000 Adam D Barratt > > <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > Upload details > > > ============== > > > > > > Package: gnupg2 > > > Version: 2.2.40-1.1+b4 > > > > > > Explanation: rebuild against glibc 2.36-9+deb12u12 > > > > It seems like gnupg2 isn't binNMU-safe in bookworm. > > A few of the binary packages have Recommends: gnupg (= > > ${binary:Version}) > > even though gnupg is arch:all. > > > > It's only Recommends but apt upgrade refuses to upgrade them: > > MarkInstall gpg:amd64 < 2.2.40-1.1 -> 2.2.40-1.1+b4 @ii umU IPb > > > FU=0 > > gpg:amd64 Recommends on gnupg:amd64 < 2.2.40-1.1 @ii mK > (= > > 2.2.40-1.1+b4) can't be satisfied! (dep) > > [...] > > MarkKeep gpg:amd64 < 2.2.40-1.1 -> 2.2.40-1.1+b4 @ii umU IPb > > > FU=0 > > [...] > > > > apt full-upgrade will upgrade it though. > > Well, that’s pretty unfortunate (and maybe a first for a point > release). > That will break a lot of upgrade workflows (it already did for me on > a > few boxes with p-u enabled). > > > Still I think gnupg2 needs a source upload. > > Agreed. > > Regards, > > taffit
