On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 05:31:03PM +0200, Michael Krause wrote:
> On 10/2/19 5:22 PM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 11:18:36AM -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, October 02, 2019 10:57:45 AM Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >>> Design a system any fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it.
> >> Well, fools need systems also. ;-)
> >
> > this is strangely somewhat on-topic: i'm wondering how/if we could design
> > -backports so that no packages are temporarily non-installable.
> >
> > at least it would save us a lot of mailing list traffic ;)
> Wow, rude.
I guess so and like to apologize for the tone.
And then, I intended to point out that this indeed a reoccuring problem
*and* fixable (by adding a(nother) staging repo). I also think this makes
Debian look less than optimal and also makes Debian (backports) less usable.
because, this issue is reported almost once a month (and I'm sure hit
many more times), this is from 2019:
1 Oct 03 Gregor Larson (0.5K) Re: Re: dependency issue for linux-headers-amd64 in stretch-backports
2 Oct 02 Michael Krause (0.6K) dependency issue for linux-headers-amd64 in stretch-backports
8 Sep 23 Robin F. Pronk (1.7K) stretch-backports linux-image-4.19.0-0.bpo.6-amd64 not available but linux-image-amd64 dep
10 s Jun 12 Bernhard Reiter (2.3K) virtualbox (stretch-backport) stopped working with linux-image-4.9.0-9-amd64
13 May 26 Alex Rauch (1.9K) linux-image-amd64 not upgradable
14 Apr 08 Ronny Standtke (2.8K) linux-latest binaries?
(found with a notmuch search for 'to:debian-backports@lists.debian.org linux-headers')
And granted, I had thought that this was reported more often.
--
cheers,
Holger
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature