Re: Uninstallable packages
[ debian-alpha CC'ed ]
On Wed 05 Apr 2000, Michael Neuffer wrote:
> * Paul Slootman (paul@wau.mis.ah.nl) [000405 11:03]:
> > > Stats for woody [2] are:
> > >
> > > * i386:94
> > > * powerpc:155
> > > * sparc:272
> > > * m68k:278
> > > * alpha:3202 (somewhat biassed by the fact that libc6 isn't available)
> >
> > Alpha has used libc6.1 for a long time. Suddenly all the packages depend
> > on libc6 and not libc6.1? Or do you in fact mean that libc6.1 is not in
> > woody...
>
> There is neither libc6 nor libc6.1.
>
> But this is not the only missing package. There is a huge amount of
> other important packages that are also missing from woody/alpha.
> I think there should soon be done something to fix this.
>
> Mike
>
>
> The following is a list taken straight from dselect:
>
> EIOM Pri Section Package Inst.ver Avail.ver Description
> Obsolete/local Required packages
> Obsolete/local Required packages in section base
> *** Req base dpkg 1.6.9 <none>
> *** Req base grep 2.4-2 <none>
> *** Req base libc6.1 2.1.3-5 <none>
> *** Req base libreadlineg 2.1-19 <none>
[ snip quite long list ]
I think the problem is this:
- the alpha autobuilder only builds and uploads for unstable (even if
the changelog of the package says "frozen unstable", which IMHO is a
bug that should quite easily be fixable)
- manual builders such as Chris C., Bart W. and myself (I know I've
missed a couple) as a result concentrate on frozen, and edit the
changelog so that "frozen unstable" becomes "frozen"; if this is not
done, and the autobuilder has already uploaded for "unstable", then
the manual upload fails. Checking whether it's necessary for each
package is a pain, especially if you don't have a permanent connection
to the net (speaking for myself here).
- uploading to frozen and not unstable while the autobuilder hasn't yet
built the unstable version will indeed break the symlink from unstable
to frozen. This sucks, and it would be cool if in such a case the
(old) frozen package got moved to unstable (yes, I realize that would
take some script hacking). Even cooler would be if the symlink in
unstable got updated (ditto).
- SO, as the autobuilder has already done the damage (for lack of a
better phrase; we appreciate its work), we're stuck with this
situation for now. Perhaps the alpha unstable branch should be kept on
hold for now? It seems, given the missing libc6.1 etc. problems, that
the autobuilder isn't active at the moment?
Paul Slootman
--
home: paul@wurtel.demon.nl http://www.wurtel.demon.nl/
work: paul@murphy.nl http://www.murphy.nl/
debian: paul@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
isdn4linux: paul@isdn4linux.de http://www.isdn4linux.de/
Reply to: