Re: Uninstallable packages in woody
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Santiago Vila wrote:
> > So let's put some mechanism in place so that people are *forced* to
> > collaborate (i.e. much like "packages which are not recompiled for all
> > architectures will not pass from unstable to testing").
>
> Before that can be done, we need someone who's willing to put in the
> effort to actually *fix* these problems. For the build issues, we have
> the various buildd admins. For the conflicts/priority issues, we don't
> really have anyone consistently making any sort of concerted effort to
> fix them at all.
What do you mean by "actually fixing" these problems? AFAIK, nobody
without ftpmaster access can *actually* fix these problems, we can
only suggest a reasonable way to fix them.
Do you mean, for example, that if someone puts the effort to ask
involved maintainers and create a patch against the current override
file which solves most or all of the conflicts, you or ftpmasters
would seriously consider applying it?
I started to write an "override file for the override file" for woody.
Currently it looks like this:
nullmailer extra conflicts with exim
mailutils extra conflicts with mailx
mkisofs optional several optional packages depend on it
cdrecord optional several optional packages depend on it
[...]
Some entries are pretty obvious. Others are reasonable. For some others
the involved maintainers would of course have to be asked first.
To fix the problem of bad dependencies/conflicts, would it help if I
try to complete this "override file for the override file", or would
it be a waste of work?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: