[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ipmitools/1.8.14-4~bpo70+1



Hello Vincent,

Sorry, I become obsessed in this work.

I have yesterday with dh-systemd (>= 1.5) and I got a build error.
By looking at this I have found the error in the build
systems /etc/apt/sources.list. There was a wrong backport repository
included.

Then I have setup a new chroot, add the wheezy backport repository and
test it again. But not using version 1.5 because I could sworn that this
does not work.

Sorry for this.

Uploaded with dh-systemd (>= 1.5) to mentors[1].

CU
Jörg

[1]

Am Mittwoch, den 10.09.2014, 01:33 -0700 schrieb Vincent Cheng:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Jörg Frings-Fürst
> <debian@jff-webhosting.net> wrote:
> 
> >> Why did you increase the version constraint on the dh-systemd
> >> build-dep? Does your package not build/function properly with only a
> >> build-dep on dh-systemd (>= 1.5)? If that's the case, this should be
> >> fixed in sid first; otherwise, please revert this unnecessary change.
> >>
> >> Again, I want to stress the importance of making sure that the debdiff
> >> between the package in jessie and your proposed backport is as minimal
> >> as possible. In many cases (and it looks like this applies to ipmitool
> >> as well), there shouldn't be any changes other than a new changelog
> >> entry.
> >>
> > On wheezy the latest version of dh-systemd is 1.18~bpo70+1:
> 
> Yes...
> 
> > Therefor ipmitool with dh-systemd (>= 1.5) can not build.
> 
> ...but I don't see how you arrive at this conclusion. I'd like to
> point out that 1.18 > 1.5, so the latest wheezy-bpo version of
> dh-systemd satisfies ipmitool's current build-dep, i.e. dh-systemd (>=
> 1.5)
> 
> Regards,
> Vincent
> 
> 


-- 
pgp Fingerprint: 7D13 3C60 0A10 DBE1 51F8  EBCB 422B 44B0 BE58 1B6E
pgp Key: BE581B6E
CAcert Key S/N: 0E:D4:56

Jörg Frings-Fürst
D-54526 Niederkail

Threema: SYR8SJXB

IRC: j_f-f@freenode.net
     j_f-f@oftc.net





Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: