Re: Uninstallable packages in woody
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Santiago Vila wrote:
> > A few weeks ago I started to play with a poor's man dependency checker
> > written in awk.
> Why when we have already had such scanners running on a daily basis
> for several years now?
That's not the issue. The issue is why the hell don't we fix the damn
bad dependencies and conflicts once and forever.
Now that no new packages are added to testing it's the ideal time.
The problem with testing is that bad depends and conflicts were
created faster than they are fixed. So if we don't try to fix bad
dependencies at freeze time, we might never fix them.
> > I believed this was never supposed to happen, since the scripts that
> > create testing make sure that all dependencies may be met within testing.
> Those scripts make sure things don't get worse, existing cruft from
> potato still exists.
Really? When are we going to fix existing cruft from potato, then?
Will woody+1 inherit the cruft from woody, which inherits the cruft
from potato, forever again?
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org