Ubuntu
libsdl1.2 package

This packages have the wrong timeframe set for the xenial LTS release

Bug #1710721 reported by Achim Behrens
8
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
libsdl1.2 (Ubuntu)
New
Undecided
Unassigned

Bug Description

The libsdl* packages from 16.04 have the wrong support timeframe set into the package info. Therefore they are falsely shown as unsupported on the "ubuntu-support-status" output:

~$ apt show libsdl1.2-dev
Package: libsdl1.2-dev
Version: 1.2.15+dfsg1-3
Priority: optional
Section: libdevel
Source: libsdl1.2
Origin: Ubuntu
Maintainer: Ubuntu Developers <email address hidden>
Original-Maintainer: Debian SDL packages maintainers <email address hidden>
Bugs: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+filebug
Installed-Size: 2.807 kB
Provides: libsdl-dev
Depends: libsdl1.2debian (= 1.2.15+dfsg1-3), libasound2-dev, libcaca-dev, libglu1-mesa-dev | libglu-dev, libpulse-dev, libx11-dev, libxext-dev
Conflicts: libsdl-dev
Replaces: libsdl-dev
Homepage: http://www.libsdl.org/
Supported: 9m
Download-Size: 707 kB
APT-Manual-Installed: yes
APT-Sources: http://de.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu xenial/main amd64 Packages
Description: Simple DirectMedia Layer (Entwicklungsdateien)
 SDL ist eine Bibliothek, die Programmen portablen Zugriff auf systemnaher
 Ebene auf einen Video-Bildspeicher, Audioausgaben, Maus und Tastatur
 ermöglicht.
 .
 Das Paket enthält die notwendigen Dateien zum Kompilieren und Linken von
 Programmen, die SDL nutzen.

This should be set to the 5years LTS timeframe (since its in main) and not to 9months.

Tags: xenial
Hans Joachim Desserud (hjd)
tags: added: xenial
Revision history for this message
Joshua Powers (powersj) wrote :

Hi! Thanks for the bug report. I am marking this a duplicate of LP: #1574670 as it is all related to the incorrect data provided by ubuntu-support-status. If you disagree or have a different understanding of what the issue is here, please feel free to respond with additional details explaining why.

Revision history for this message
Achim Behrens (k1l) wrote :

Hi, yeah i have no issue to mark that bugs (there are several of them for several packages affected) as duplicates of that bug. My intention was to document which packages are affected and need this change since its a variety of packages and sometimes just some lone packages are affected from the same naming-group.

I will mark my other bugs as duplicates, too.

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.
Subscribing...

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.