Hi,
I intend to upgrade r-cran-openmx and when trying to build I get:
Error: package 'BH' 1.66.0-1 was found, but >= 1.69.0.1 is required by '.'
I guess this is since the DESCRIPTION file does not properly declares
the version number.
I attached a patch which also includes a versioned Depends on libboost-dev.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--- a/DESCRIPTION
+++ b/DESCRIPTION
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
Package: BH
Type: Package
Title: Boost C++ Header Files -- Metapackage
-Version: 1.66.0-1
+Version: 1.74.0-1
Date: 2018-02-12
Author: Dirk Eddelbuettel, John W. Emerson and Michael J. Kane
Maintainer: Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd@debian.org>
--- a/debian/control
+++ b/debian/control
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ Homepage: https://cran.r-project.org/package=BH
Package: r-cran-bh
Architecture: all
Multi-Arch: foreign
-Depends: ${misc:Depends}, libboost-dev
+Depends: ${misc:Depends}, libboost-dev (>= 1.74.0)
Description: (Virtual) GNU R package to provide BH
The CRAN package BH provides a (large) subset of Boost. This package tricks
R into believing BH is installed when we just depend on the distribution's
On 31 August 2021 at 10:45, Andreas Tille wrote:
| Package: r-cran-bh
| Version: 1.74.0-1
| Severity: important
| Tags: patch
| X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-r@lists.debian.org
|
| Hi,
|
| I intend to upgrade r-cran-openmx and when trying to build I get:
|
| Error: package 'BH' 1.66.0-1 was found, but >= 1.69.0.1 is required by '.'
|
| I guess this is since the DESCRIPTION file does not properly declares
| the version number.
r-cran-bh in Debian is/was still somewhat of a 'hack' as it pretends to be a
package it is not, but it appears to have done its job. So updating it is fine.
| I attached a patch which also includes a versioned Depends on libboost-dev.
Thanks.
In the beginning I updated BH when our libboost(-dev) updated, but Debian's
feel behind. I can't automagically keep these in sync as we'd be lying, but
in this case it is the right move as a few Boost libraries did change (and
even require C++14). So will apply this.
Dirk
| Kind regards
|
| Andreas.
|
|
| --- a/DESCRIPTION
| +++ b/DESCRIPTION
| @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
| Package: BH
| Type: Package
| Title: Boost C++ Header Files -- Metapackage
| -Version: 1.66.0-1
| +Version: 1.74.0-1
| Date: 2018-02-12
| Author: Dirk Eddelbuettel, John W. Emerson and Michael J. Kane
| Maintainer: Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd@debian.org>
| --- a/debian/control
| +++ b/debian/control
| @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ Homepage: https://cran.r-project.org/package=BH
| Package: r-cran-bh
| Architecture: all
| Multi-Arch: foreign
| -Depends: ${misc:Depends}, libboost-dev
| +Depends: ${misc:Depends}, libboost-dev (>= 1.74.0)
| Description: (Virtual) GNU R package to provide BH
| The CRAN package BH provides a (large) subset of Boost. This package tricks
| R into believing BH is installed when we just depend on the distribution's
|
|
|
| -- System Information:
| Debian Release: 11.0
| APT prefers testing
| APT policy: (501, 'testing'), (50, 'buildd-unstable'), (50, 'unstable'), (5, 'experimental'), (1, 'buildd-experimental')
| Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
|
| Kernel: Linux 5.10.0-8-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU threads)
| Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=de_DE:de
| Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
| Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
| LSM: AppArmor: enabled
|
| Versions of packages r-cran-bh depends on:
| ii libboost-dev 1.74.0.3
|
| r-cran-bh recommends no packages.
|
| r-cran-bh suggests no packages.
|
| -- no debconf information
On 31 August 2021 at 10:45, Andreas Tille wrote:
| Package: r-cran-bh
| Version: 1.74.0-1
| Severity: important
| Tags: patch
| X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-r@lists.debian.org
|
| Hi,
|
| I intend to upgrade r-cran-openmx and when trying to build I get:
|
| Error: package 'BH' 1.66.0-1 was found, but >= 1.69.0.1 is required by '.'
|
| I guess this is since the DESCRIPTION file does not properly declares
| the version number.
r-cran-bh in Debian is/was still somewhat of a 'hack' as it pretends to be a
package it is not, but it appears to have done its job. So updating it is fine.
| I attached a patch which also includes a versioned Depends on libboost-dev.
Thanks.
In the beginning I updated BH when our libboost(-dev) updated, but Debian's
feel behind. I can't automagically keep these in sync as we'd be lying, but
in this case it is the right move as a few Boost libraries did change (and
even require C++14). So will apply this.
Dirk
| Kind regards
|
| Andreas.
|
|
| --- a/DESCRIPTION
| +++ b/DESCRIPTION
| @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
| Package: BH
| Type: Package
| Title: Boost C++ Header Files -- Metapackage
| -Version: 1.66.0-1
| +Version: 1.74.0-1
| Date: 2018-02-12
| Author: Dirk Eddelbuettel, John W. Emerson and Michael J. Kane
| Maintainer: Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd@debian.org>
| --- a/debian/control
| +++ b/debian/control
| @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ Homepage: https://cran.r-project.org/package=BH
| Package: r-cran-bh
| Architecture: all
| Multi-Arch: foreign
| -Depends: ${misc:Depends}, libboost-dev
| +Depends: ${misc:Depends}, libboost-dev (>= 1.74.0)
| Description: (Virtual) GNU R package to provide BH
| The CRAN package BH provides a (large) subset of Boost. This package tricks
| R into believing BH is installed when we just depend on the distribution's
|
|
|
| -- System Information:
| Debian Release: 11.0
| APT prefers testing
| APT policy: (501, 'testing'), (50, 'buildd-unstable'), (50, 'unstable'), (5, 'experimental'), (1, 'buildd-experimental')
| Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
|
| Kernel: Linux 5.10.0-8-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU threads)
| Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=de_DE:de
| Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
| Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
| LSM: AppArmor: enabled
|
| Versions of packages r-cran-bh depends on:
| ii libboost-dev 1.74.0.3
|
| r-cran-bh recommends no packages.
|
| r-cran-bh suggests no packages.
|
| -- no debconf information
Thanks for catching that, and sorry for accidentally spamming your package's report. Dirk On 31 August 2021 at 14:58, Vincent Lefevre wrote: | Control: reopen -1 | Control: notfixed -1 r-cran-bh/1.74.0-2 | | Hello Dirk, | | On 2021-08-31 12:24:03 +0000, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: | > This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report | > which was filed against the anacron package: | > | > #993348: anacron: dangling symlinks under /etc/systemd/system | > | > It has been closed by Debian FTP Masters <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org> (reply to Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd@debian.org>). | [...] | > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- | > Hash: SHA256 | > | > Format: 1.8 | > Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2021 06:40:29 -0500 | > Source: r-cran-bh | > Architecture: source | > Version: 1.74.0-2 | > Distribution: unstable | > Urgency: medium | > Maintainer: Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd@debian.org> | > Changed-By: Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd@debian.org> | > Closes: 993348 | > Changes: | > r-cran-bh (1.74.0-2) unstable; urgency=medium | > . | > * debian/control: Updated actual package version in DESCRIPTION which | > was accidentally omitted from the previous update (Closes: #993348) | | Wrong bug number. The one in r-cran-bh about DESCRIPTION is #993349. | | -- | Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> | 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> | Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
Hi Dirk,
It worked flawlessly and I consider it a pretty sensible helper for many
packages.
You are welcome.
I think cheating with different Debian versions is one thing but IMHO
the versions inside the package (I mean Debian package version and the
version inside DESCRIPTION) should match no matter what actual libboost
version is in Debian.
Kind regards
Andreas.
On 31 August 2021 at 15:36, Andreas Tille wrote: | I think cheating with different Debian versions is one thing but IMHO | the versions inside the package (I mean Debian package version and the | version inside DESCRIPTION) should match no matter what actual libboost | version is in Debian. That was a bug esp. as actually had 1.74 in unstable. I update upstream BH annually now (usually in December) so once for every three Boost releases (always April, August, December) and I have been ahead which _could_ be a problem. But as more C++ moves into expanded standards, reliance on Boost is less critical than it was so we may be ok. Dirk
The issue was solved by a previous upload but the bug was not closed in changelog.