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

Re: Problem between priorities of libisofs6 and libjte1



On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 09:37:28AM +0100, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
>Hi,
>
>trying to get in contact with Steve McIntyre about
>Debian bug #800130, libjte1:

Hey Thomas,

Apologies for not responding earlier - swamped with other stuff like
running a Debian mini-conf in Cambridge. Just catching up on email
now... :-/

>A few weeks ago i made packages of xorriso-1.4.0 et.al.
>which are now in Debian testing, thanks to Dominique
>Dumont.
>
>QA complains about libisofs6 having Priority "optional" but
>depending on libjte1 with Priority "extra":
> https://qa.debian.org/debcheck.php?dist=unstable&package=libisofs
>
>I wrote to Steve in septemnber and a few days later filed
>the bug.
>A new release of libisofs is planned to happen before the
>end of the year.
>
>My favorite solution would be to set libjte1 to "optional", too.
>I cannot see hard reasons in the policy description which
>would prevent this. libjte1 is for an exotic use case. But
>libisofs6 has a popcon rank around 1000.
>
>Less favorable would be to remove the dependency on libjte1
>and to tell all Jigdo producers to use GNU xorriso or to
>modify the Debian source packages of libisofs, libisoburn,
>and xorriso.
>
>Quite unfavorable would be to set libisofs, libisoburn, and
>xorriso to "extra". libisofs is a dependency of xfburn which
>has priority "optional".

ACK. I'll sort out a dependency change for libjte* shortly. It may
take a few days to happen, as the priorities of packages are
*actually* set via ftpmaster overrides.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
"I used to be the first kid on the block wanting a cranial implant,
 now I want to be the first with a cranial firewall. " -- Charlie Stross


Reply to: