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

Re: Uninstallable packages

[ debian-alpha CC'ed ]

On Wed 05 Apr 2000, Michael Neuffer wrote:
> * Paul Slootman (paul@wau.mis.ah.nl) [000405 11:03]:
> > > Stats for woody [2] are:
> > > 
> > >     * i386:94
> > >     * powerpc:155
> > >     * sparc:272
> > >     * m68k:278
> > >     * alpha:3202  (somewhat biassed by the fact that libc6 isn't available)
> > 
> > Alpha has used libc6.1 for a long time. Suddenly all the packages depend
> > on libc6 and not libc6.1?  Or do you in fact mean that libc6.1 is not in
> > woody...
> There is neither libc6 nor libc6.1.
> But this is not the only missing package. There is a huge amount of
> other important packages that are also missing from woody/alpha.
> I think there should soon be done something to fix this.
> Mike
> The following is a list taken straight from dselect:
> EIOM Pri Section  Package      Inst.ver    Avail.ver   Description
>           Obsolete/local Required packages      
>             Obsolete/local Required packages in section base        
>  *** Req base     dpkg         1.6.9       <none>
>  *** Req base     grep         2.4-2       <none>
>  *** Req base     libc6.1      2.1.3-5     <none>
>  *** Req base     libreadlineg 2.1-19      <none>

[ snip quite long list ]

I think the problem is this:

- the alpha autobuilder only builds and uploads for unstable (even if
  the changelog of the package says "frozen unstable", which IMHO is a
  bug that should quite easily be fixable)

- manual builders such as Chris C., Bart W. and myself (I know I've
  missed a couple) as a result concentrate on frozen, and edit the
  changelog so that "frozen unstable" becomes "frozen"; if this is not
  done, and the autobuilder has already uploaded for "unstable", then
  the manual upload fails.  Checking whether it's necessary for each
  package is a pain, especially if you don't have a permanent connection
  to the net (speaking for myself here).

- uploading to frozen and not unstable while the autobuilder hasn't yet
  built the unstable version will indeed break the symlink from unstable
  to frozen. This sucks, and it would be cool if in such a case the
  (old) frozen package got moved to unstable (yes, I realize that would
  take some script hacking).  Even cooler would be if the symlink in
  unstable got updated (ditto).

- SO, as the autobuilder has already done the damage (for lack of a
  better phrase; we appreciate its work), we're stuck with this
  situation for now. Perhaps the alpha unstable branch should be kept on
  hold for now?  It seems, given the missing libc6.1 etc. problems, that
  the autobuilder isn't active at the moment?

Paul Slootman
home:       paul@wurtel.demon.nl http://www.wurtel.demon.nl/
work:       paul@murphy.nl       http://www.murphy.nl/
debian:     paul@debian.org      http://www.debian.org/
isdn4linux: paul@isdn4linux.de   http://www.isdn4linux.de/

Reply to: