Bug#1000465: libodbc1: Missing dependency and dangling symlink

2021-11-25 Thread Sebastian Ramacher
Hi On 2021-11-25 13:22:12, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Thu, 2021-11-25 at 12:26:29 +0100, [EXT] Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > [Cc Sebastian Ramacher] > > > > On 2021-11-25 21:42:48 +1100, Hugh McMaster wrote: > > > On Thu, 25 Nov 2021 at 03:39, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > > > > > > On 2021-11-24

Bug#1000465: libodbc1: Missing dependency and dangling symlink

2021-11-25 Thread Vincent Lefevre
[Cc Sebastian Ramacher] On 2021-11-25 21:42:48 +1100, Hugh McMaster wrote: > On Thu, 25 Nov 2021 at 03:39, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > > On 2021-11-24 16:31:08 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > > > The symlinks must be kept for backwards compat. Please see #998169 for > > > the context of this

Bug#1000465: libodbc1: Missing dependency and dangling symlink

2021-11-24 Thread Vincent Lefevre
On 2021-11-24 16:31:08 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > The symlinks must be kept for backwards compat. Please see #998169 for > the context of this packaging cleanup. OK, thanks. #998169 gives the explanation. Note that I was also wondering whether these symblinks are still actually used. For

Bug#1000465: libodbc1: Missing dependency and dangling symlink

2021-11-24 Thread Vincent Lefevre
On 2021-11-24 15:16:12 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2021-11-23 17:55:54 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > > Nice cleanup with the odbc packaging! Unfortunately the new > > transitional package looks a bit broken. It contains a dangling > > symlink: > > > > $ ls -la

Bug#1000465: libodbc1: Missing dependency and dangling symlink

2021-11-24 Thread Vincent Lefevre
On 2021-11-23 17:55:54 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > Nice cleanup with the odbc packaging! Unfortunately the new > transitional package looks a bit broken. It contains a dangling > symlink: > > $ ls -la /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libodbccr.so.1 > ls: cannot access