Re: update excuses.. how to read them
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 01:18:53PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> That seems a good explanation for that package, what about this:
>
> * heimdal 0.3d-5 (currently 0.2l-7) (low)
> + Maintainer: Brian May <bam@debian.org>
> + only 8/10 days old
> + out of date on m68k: heimdal-clients, heimdal-clients-x,
> heimdal-dev, heimdal-kdc, heimdal-lib, heimdal-servers,
> heimdal-servers-x (from 0.3d-2)
> + there are up to date bins in m68k also
> + out of date on sparc: heimdal-clients, heimdal-clients-x,
> heimdal-dev, heimdal-kdc, heimdal-lib, heimdal-servers,
> heimdal-servers-x (from 0.3c-4)
> + there are up to date bins in sparc also
> + not considered
>
> So, is it up-to-date on m68k and sparc or isn't it? (I assume this
> means unstable and not testing).
That means that some binaries are out of date on m68k, and some are not
- generally, this means that there are some architecture-specific and
some Architecture: all packages produced from the same source, and the
binary ones have not been recompiled. AJ, any chance you could
clarify that message to not count arch: all packages, if they've been
built at all?
> Am I too imply that heimdal-docs gets installed straight away as it is
> "Architecture: all", and doesn't require compiling?
No, a binary package will only enter testing when its entire source
package does.
> Will these packages install in testing in 2 days time, or will the
> out-of-date stuff cause problems? How do I find out why it isn't
> getting compiled?
They won't install until the out-of-date issues are resolved.
Dan
/--------------------------------\ /--------------------------------\
| Daniel Jacobowitz |__| SCS Class of 2002 |
| Debian GNU/Linux Developer __ Carnegie Mellon University |
| dan@debian.org | | dmj+@andrew.cmu.edu |
\--------------------------------/ \--------------------------------/
Reply to: