Bug#767009: cyphesis-cpp: FTBFS: B-D on old libreadline5-dev

2014-10-28 Thread Olek

Hey Aaron!

On 10/27/2014 10:41 AM, Aaron M. Ucko wrote:

Source: cyphesis-cpp
Version: 0.6.0-1
Severity: serious
Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully in the past)

Automatic builds of cyphesis-cpp have been failng:

   The following packages have unmet dependencies:
sbuild-build-depends-cyphesis-cpp-dummy : Depends: libreadline5-dev but it 
is not installable
   E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.

The alternative build dependency on libreadline-dev makes no
difference because, for the sake of maximum reproducibility, Debian's
autobuilders are configured to consider alternatives only when forced
to by explicit architecture restrictions.

Could you please change that term to just libreadline-dev, which is
now a (non-virtual) dummy package depending on the current real
package (libreadline6-dev)?

Thanks!



Thanks for bringing this to my attention! I'll take care of it right 
away. Hope things are going well for you and I hope the warmer weather 
this summer was a pleasant change. :) Take care.


-Olek


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Bug#767009: cyphesis-cpp: FTBFS: B-D on old libreadline5-dev

2014-10-27 Thread Aaron M. Ucko
Source: cyphesis-cpp
Version: 0.6.0-1
Severity: serious
Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully in the past)

Automatic builds of cyphesis-cpp have been failng:

  The following packages have unmet dependencies:
   sbuild-build-depends-cyphesis-cpp-dummy : Depends: libreadline5-dev but it 
is not installable
  E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.

The alternative build dependency on libreadline-dev makes no
difference because, for the sake of maximum reproducibility, Debian's
autobuilders are configured to consider alternatives only when forced
to by explicit architecture restrictions.

Could you please change that term to just libreadline-dev, which is
now a (non-virtual) dummy package depending on the current real
package (libreadline6-dev)?

Thanks!


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org