Re: [2002-03-03] Release Status Update
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Tomorrow, or in the very near future, most of the following packages
> will be dropped from testing due to release-critical bugs of one type
> or another.
That's fixed already.
Unless I hear otherwise from dhd in the next three hours, I will fix
this tonight. I don't know how to fix the hppa thing, but a festival w/o
hppa support is better than no festival at all. Oh and dhd re your
comments on #127160 --
a) I have no life so I don't mind NMUing it this evening for you. ;-)
b) Dropping it from HPPA, while hardly ideal, is the quick fix in this
kind of situation.
> * ld.so has disappeared from non-i386, but the old package was
> marked Essential: yes, so can't be removed. A dummy package
> for the non-i386 arches that had ldso that does nothing but
> allow you to remove it should be created. It probably needs
> to Conflict: with libc5 to ensure it's not used to satisfy
> dependencies. There may be other pitfalls to be taken care of.
Hmm, that's a pretty good idea. Upgraders with libc5 packages would have
to notice that apt was trying to remove them + libc5, and would have to
put the lot on hold. David Engel's idea was:
> Another option is the one that is needed to build gcc (and the current
> libstdc++2.10 package on !hurd-i386). Build it on potato. Neither of these
> will build on woody/sid, but it is desireable to keep them around (ldso for
> easy essential removal, gcc for compatibility with commercial software that
> links to libstdc++2.10)
It would need to be built on potato for alpha, arm, m68k, powerpc, and sparc,
in addition to i386 (which already works).
It's no cleaner, but would provide a marginally better user experience,
but would be a lot more work.
see shy jo, previous maintainer of festival