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

Bug#516888: openoffice.org built against experimentals icu



Package: openoffice.org-core
Severity: serious
Version: 1:3.0.1-3

Hi,

Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> what I get is
> 
> |~# apt-get dist-upgrade
> |Reading package lists... Done
> |Building dependency tree       
> |Reading state information... Done
> |Calculating upgrade... Done
> |The following packages have been kept back:
> |  openoffice.org-core shared-mime-info
> |0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 2 not upgraded.
> |~# apt-get install openoffice.org-core
> |Reading package lists... Done
> |Building dependency tree       
> |Reading state information... Done
> |Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
> |requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
> |distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
> |or been moved out of Incoming.
> |The following information may help to resolve the situation:
> |
> |The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> |  openoffice.org-core: Depends: libicu40 (>= 4.0-1) but it is not installable
> |E: Broken packages
> |~# apt-get install libicu40
> |Reading package lists... Done
> |Building dependency tree       
> |Reading state information... Done
> |Package libicu40 is not available, but is referred to by another package.
> |This may mean that the package is missing, has been obsoleted, or
> |is only available from another source
> |E: Package libicu40 has no installation candidate

And why is this posted to #516084? Which talks about a mixture between 2.4.1 and 3.0.1
possible which fails install? Not about 3.0.1-3 built against an experimental package.

Please post unrelated messages for other bufs to unrelated and closed bugs without reason,
thanks.

But yes, it seems I accidentially built against libicu40.

Kurt, can we bin-NMU openoffice.org in sid against libicu38?

> So we could either to rebuild against the icu version sid (if possible)

That should be preferred...

> or migrate icu40 from exp into sid. According to the buildd log [1], libicu
> is not the only package which is not (yet) migrated.

It is. There's no buildlog for amd64 because I build it, and if I built it
in a clean sid it would have worked... (i.e. it would have gotten a dep on libicu38...)

> Is this something worth to reopen or this or should I open wishlist bug

No way for reopen. The bugs are different. If at all a new bug against OOo.

> against icu (and other libs missing)?

Nope, it's a OOo bug.

[ Nevertheless, icu 4.0 should be uploaded to sid when the release team agrees with it ]

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  rene@debian.org | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73




Reply to: