Re: testing installation bot just plain doesn't like XFree86
On Sun, Apr 08, 2001 at 08:25:57PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> So, I keep getting bugs filed against the versions of XFree86 in testing...
>
> xfree86v3 3.3.6-38 (currently 3.3.6-32) (optional) (high)
> Maintainer: Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>
> xfree86v3 uploaded 15 days ago, out of date by 13 days!
> valid candidate (will be installed unless it's dependent upon other buggy pkgs)
> What makes a valid candidate get ignored for 13 days despite being a valid
> candidate?
A dependency on a new libc that hasn't gone into testing, like almost
every other package.
> xfree86 4.0.2-13 (currently 4.0.2-7) (optional) (medium)
> Maintainer: Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>
> xfree86 uploaded 9 days ago, out of date by 4 days!
> out of date on powerpc: xlibosmesa-dev, xlibosmesa3 (from 4.0.1-10) (but powerpc isn't keeping up, so ignoring this problem)
> there are up to date bins in powerpc also
> valid candidate (will be installed unless it's dependent upon other buggy pkgs)
> Well, I completely don't understand this one. powerpc is simultaneously out of
> date and up to date?
Yes. Arch: all packages often do that.
Cheers,
a "covering up the anti-Branden conspiracy since 1978" j
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
-- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)
Reply to: