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

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.

>         cdebconf 

That's fixed already.

>         festival 

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

Reply to: