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

Bug#970491: nmu: ghostscript_9.53.1~dfsg-1



Quoting Paul Gevers (2020-09-17 10:22:59)
> Hi Jonas,
> 
> On 17-09-2020 10:12, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > Ghostscript package uses dh_linktree, which has this to say:
>                            ^^^^^^^^^^^ answers my question.
> 
> >> Since symlink trees are created statically at build-time, they are not 
> >> very future-proof and have a risk to miss some files introduced by a 
> >> newer version of the package providing the file tree which is 
> >> duplicated. That's why the generated dependencies generally ensure 
> >> that the same upstream version be used at run-time than at build-time.
> > 
> > In my understanding, ghostscript _could_ become broken _if_ a newer font 
> > package changes paths: Ghostscript wuold then ship with dangling 
> > symlinks (which might in itself be an RC-level issue) and this would 
> > cause some functionality of the ghostscript package to fail.
> > 
> > Does that answer your question?
> 
> So, because of the way dh_linktree works, every reverse dependency needs
> to be rebuild. Luckily, we have transition trackers for those:
> 
> https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-upperlimit-fonts-urw-base35.html
> 
> And the tracker/qa package of fonts-urw-base35 mentions it too:
> Issues preventing migration:
> migrating fonts-urw-base35/20200910-1/amd64 to testing makes
> libgs9-common/9.52.1~dfsg-1/amd64 uninstallable
> migrating fonts-urw-base35/20200910-1/i386 to testing makes
> libgs9-common/9.52.1~dfsg-1/i386 uninstallable
> 
> I'll binNMU shortly.

Arrgh - I realixed only now that the issue is in a arch-all package.

Sorry for the fuss - I will need to do a propoer release after all.

 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature


Reply to: