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

Re: Bug#1094501: moreinfo



Hi,

On Sat, Mar 22, 2025 at 07:52:28PM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 22:38:02 -0500 "Paul R. Tagliamonte" <paultag@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > tags 1094501 moreinfo
> > thanks
> > 
> > I see the removal request for http-request but webmock looks like it's
> > sticking around. Mind taking a look into these?
> > 
> > Checking reverse dependencies...
> > # Broken Depends:
> > ruby-em-http-request: ruby-em-http-request
> > 
> > # Broken Build-Depends:
> > ruby-em-http-request: ruby-em-socksify
> > ruby-webmock: ruby-em-socksify
> This is also part of the current key package set.

My partial analysis shows this is part of the key package set due to 
d-i:

meta:manual	=>	debian-installer
debian-installer	build-depends	dns323-firmware-tools
dns323-firmware-tools	depends	ruby-ffi
ruby-ffi	build-depends	ruby-rspec
ruby-rspec	build-depends	ruby-childprocess
ruby-childprocess	build-depends	ruby-coveralls
ruby-coveralls	build-depends	ruby-vcr
ruby-vcr	build-depends	ruby-em-http-request
ruby-em-http-request	build-depends	ruby-em-socksify

ISTM d-i could stop build-depending dns323-firmware-tools. There 
are no armel kernels anymore (except -rpi). Keeping a firmware 
support package for armel hardware that cannot be installed onto 
anymore seems unnecessary to me.

Maybe there are other reasons that will keep ruby-em-socksify in the 
key package set, but this chain could be cut off?

Adding CC: debian-boot@lists.debian.org so they could hopefully 
chime in.

BR,
Chris



Reply to: