(No need to CC me: I read both lists) On Saturday 05 April 2008, Luk Claes wrote: > > If proper britney support was implemented there _are_ some udebs that > > could be done completely automatically, but there will always be cases > > where automated checks are insufficient. At least until we completely > > rework the dependency declarations in udebs (which would also require > > adding support for Conflicts). > > What is the status of this reworked udeb dependency handling? Status is: I personally think we'll need to address this at some point but it has never really been discussed within the team and I've no idea what will be involved other than that it's likely to be invasive. In other words: there is no status. Please remember that before Etch library dependencies were not even correctly generated (dh_shlibdeps would return regular packages instead of udebs). This is currently still the case for glibc, but hopefully not for long as I filed a BR (with patch) yesterday to fix that. Unfortunately this whole aspect seems to have been underestimated when udebs were first defined. Or maybe it's not so much underestimation, but just the fact that D-I's scope has grown in such a way that this is just more of an issue then it was in the beginning. The only thing we can do here is take this in steps. The next step should be britney support within the limits of the current situation regarding udeb dependencies. Cheers, FJP
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.