Re: Testing excuses question

[Ozgur Karatas <ozgur.karatas@ttnet.net.tr>]

success,
and test set in webalizer? 

http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/points.html

 ,''`.  Ozgur Karatas
: :' :  ozgur@ozgurkaratas.com
`. `'   http://www.ozgurkaratas.com
  `-    Powered By Debian GNU\Linux

---- Jiri Palecek <jpalecek@web.de> demiş ki: 
> Hello,
> 
> I've seen some mysterious excuses on http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian
> 
> For example:
> 
> look at the package arch2darcs. There is:
> 
>     arch2darcs is adding amd64 binaries (no new version) 
>     arch2darcs is waiting for tla
> 
> this looks OK.
> 
> But then
> 
>         Updating tla makes 1 depending packages uninstallable on i386: arch2darcs
> 
> And more
> 
> Dependency analysis (including build-depends; i386 only):
> 
>     info: arch2darcs depends on tla >= 1.3 (ok, testing has version 1.3.3-3)
> 
> So:
> 
> - How can be arch2darcs be waiting for tla, if testing already has some version.
>   I could understand it is waiting for tla to add amd64 packages too, but it blocks
>   other arches.
> 
> - How can updating tla make arch2darcs on i386, if testing has version 1.3.3-3,
>   is trying to update to 1.3.3-3.3 (it seems the maintainer does some numerology :-)
>   and the dependency is in the form >=1.3?
> 
> It seems these packages are blocked by neon (which also block subversion, kdevelop
> and rpm). There is  also another gem concerning neon:
> 
>     neon depends on libssl-dev >= 0.9.8a-3 but testing has 0.9.8b-2 (unstable has 0.9.8b-2)
> 
> It seems that all packages the webpage says are directly dependent on neon
> already have a version that is not too young and is RC bug free, so if there aren't any
> other reasons, they could go in.
> 
> BTW what is the exact reason for this situation?
> 
> Regards
>    Jiri Palecek